Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful that you, Madam Speaker, have chosen for our first Wednesday morning debate of the new year the extremely topical subject of pay and conditions for nurses, midwives and health visitors. Out there in the country, a lot of people will be pleased that we have been given this opportunity for such a debate.
First, may I perform the usual courtesy of welcoming the Minister, who has a great opportunity? In one speech, he could guarantee a successful career and make himself popular with the whole country, hugely popular with the health service and entirely popular with hon. Members on both sides of the House. I look to him to rise to an unparalleled occasion. I shall give him a few prompts and hope that he will respond appropriately.
As hon. Members know, in a couple of weeks, the pay review body will recommend what should be paid to nursing staff, midwives and health visitors for the coming year. The Secretary of State for Health said the other day that the country faces a crisis in the health service. The Royal College of Nursing, also in the past few days, has said that the crisis in terms of shortage of nurses in the health service is the worst for a quarter of a century. Midwives say that the number of registered midwives has fallen by 2,500 over the past five years, and that the number of registered and practising midwives is lower than at any time this decade.
I am conscious that the debate is about only some of the people who work in the health service. We could have had a debate a wide-ranging debate about all NHS employees. May I allay their concerns and possible jealousy? We pay tribute to all those who work directly for the health service or are contracted to it. Although I shall concentrate on the largest group in the health service, I hope that—if you are generous, Madam Speaker—we will soon be able to debate the other two large groups, which also have pay review bodies and have their futures determined in the same way: the professions allied to medicine—chiropodists, dieticians, occupational therapists, orthoptists, physiotherapists and radiographers—and related grades and, of course, doctors and dentists. I am conscious that they, equally, play a part in the team, as do those who are not yet covered by the review body procedure, such as psychologists and psychiatrists.
We are grateful to all those people, but it seemed appropriate to debate nurses, midwives and health visitors, not only because they are the largest group, but because

they are the group which manifests the most severe problems of recruitment and retention. It is vital to the future of the health service that we find solutions to those problems.
The national health service employs slightly fewer than 1 million people, which makes it by far the largest employer in the country. The review body considers workers in Scotland, England and Wales and recommends for the three countries together. We are discussing the futures of about 750,000 people in these professions. Interestingly, and perhaps relevantly, about 80 per cent. of them are women. As a man, I must say that, had the gender balance in the health
service been different during the 50 years of its existence, wages for nurses, midwives and other health workers would not be relatively as low. Everybody in the health service should be paid appropriately, especially those who often have the larger caring and outside-work responsibilities.
The latest available figures show that there are about 600,000 practitioners on the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting register, but they also show a lot of alarming trends. I shall spend a couple of moments discussing the background statistics before coming to the argument and where we go from here.
The statistics show that the number of people available, on the list and qualified to work has gone down by about 2 per cent. in the past year, which is the biggest annual decline ever reported. People in the professions are also aging rapidly. We all age rapidly, but the profile of people in these groups is changing significantly. Fewer than one in seven is under 30, and more than one in eight is 55 or over and eligible for retirement. The trend looks unhelpful, because, within about 10 years, a fifth of all nurses will be over 50 and retirements are likely to increase from about 5,000 a year to about 10,000.
That means that we must replace those at one end of the health service who are leaving because of age, but, unhelpfully, we do not appear to have the numbers coming in at the other end. The number of people coming on to the register has fallen by more than a third—from about 19,000 a year to about 12,000—and we have lost a third of that number in the past 12 months. Thus, recruitment has declined over the past 10 years but the last big decline has been in the past year.
Not surprisingly, we have had to look abroad for people to help the health service. Although that issue has been well publicised, we are talking about small numbers—of more than 500,000 employees, only some 4,500 people from overseas work in our health service. We cannot, therefore, hope to rescue the NHS by bringing people from overseas.

Mr. David Chidgey: Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent survey that shows that at least a third of nurses work two weeks' unpaid overtime a year just to keep the national health service going? Is that not an appalling indictment of the Government's record as an employer, especially given that they continually promote policies on fairness at work?

Mr. Hughes: There are many anomalies, of which that is one. Another is that many nurses and midwives are paid a lower hourly rate for overtime. That goes against normal practice.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: It would not do Rover much good.

Mr. Hughes: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. If NHS employees have the option of staying with their current employer and being paid less than the normal hourly rate or going to an agency and being hired back to do the same work at time and a half, the incentive to stay with the NHS is extremely small.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) is absolutely right: there is a huge amount of unpaid overtime. There is also a huge amount of inadequately paid overtime. Those people are expected to do overtime, as many wards cannot cope without it. If we are to keep the work force at its current size, we need 20,000 to 25,000 new nurses and midwives a year, so we must have more pre-registration people as well.
It would be easy for an Opposition spokesman simply to apportion blame, but that does little good. Whatever the history of trends in recruitment, we need to get out of the hole in which we find ourselves. I want to use this debate to encourage people, and unashamedly to put pressure on the Minister and the Government not just to recognise the crisis but to seize what may be the only great opportunity remaining in this Parliament. Health service workers have been let down badly twice in the past two years—first under the previous Government, then under this Government. For the past three years, the pay review body has been asked to do its work and has come up with proposals, and the Government have said that the proposals cannot be implemented—certainly not altogether.
Nothing undermines the morale of people who are not even on average earnings more than being told that those in the private sector and other jobs will move ahead while they must stay at the same level or move backwards. The relative reduction in earnings and take-home pay has been unacceptable, and it would be a tragic mistake if the Government were to stage the pay review body's recommendations again. I call on the Government to say today that they will implement the recommendations in full from 1 April.
Last year, the Secretary of State apologised later in the year that he had had to stage the pay increases. Apologies are fine as far as they go, but they do not make up for £250 less pay in the pocket. My colleagues who deal with Treasury matters have confirmed that the country can afford to make that commitment. It would be a false economy not to pay health service staff what they deserve. If we do not pay them now, we shall not have a health service up to the job in the future, and the long-term cost to the economy will be far higher.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the cut in nurses' pay is leading employer bodies to appoint nursing auxiliaries—people who would love to be in the nursing profession—and money is being saved by taking on people at another level?

Mr. Hughes: That is also true. The hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable about these matters. Although the pay review body's recommendations do not apply to Northern Ireland, and the staffing crisis is less great in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom, it is

imperative that we continue to recruit and retain staff in Northern Ireland, many of whom have come to rescue the health service in the rest of the United Kingdom, where they enter other grades and often find a better salary reward.
I want to show the effect in cash terms of staging. In the past two years, a grade 2 clinical nurse has lost £248 as a result of staging. Last year, an award of 3.8 per cent. was made, but only 2 per cent. was paid in April and the rest was not paid until December. The rise did not keep pace with the cost of living. The Government are trying to con people by saying that it is all right if the pay increase keeps pace with the target rate of inflation. That is not the real inflation rate. The minimum that the Government must do is pay the real inflation rate—let alone make up for the money that was not paid last year.
In case the Minister says that it is all very well for Liberal Democrats to say that, but it is a huge sum of money, I remind him that the difference would have been £111 million and that the NHS budget is some £45 billion. If that was not money worth spending, we do not know what is. The Government have a huge reserve and could have afforded to pay in full last April. The Liberal Democrats said before, during and after the review that they should have paid, and the country made it abundantly clear in every opinion poll that nurses, midwives and health visitors, and others in similar professions, should have been paid a decent wage. In one respect it is too late, but in another there is still an opportunity.
May I do something slightly unusual and pay tribute to the national, regional and local press, which, over the past year, has clearly understood this issue better than the Government? It is unusual for Liberal Democrats—or other parties, for that matter—to pay tribute to the tabloid press, but The Express, the Daily Mail and The Mirror have consistently argued the case for health service employees to be paid better. They do so because they realise that a large proportion of their readership and the population at large want the health service to succeed. The NHS has lost 140,000 nurses in the past three years and there are some 12,000 nursing and 1,000 midwifery vacancies, so the press's interest has not been out of keeping.
The Liberal Democrats have seven simple-to-express elements of policy on pay and conditions. The issue is complex in many senses because of the complexity of each profession, grading structures, promotion and career development, training, overtime and local discretion. It would be wrong to seek to second-guess the pay review body's recommendations or make detailed proposals for each grade and profession. We shall value the pay review body's work this year as we have for more than a decade. It does an extremely good job and we are grateful for it. However, it is not difficult to reduce what needs to be done to some core propositions. Five of the seven proposals relate to what the Government should do now in terms of payment, and two relate to procedure.
First, whatever the pay review body recommends must be agreed—at least. Perhaps we need to agree to more. Secondly, there must be immediate, not staged, payment. Thirdly, we must put more money on the table to encourage people to enter the health service. When people are deciding on a career, and deciding which degree to study for, they sometimes consider the pay that they will receive once they have attained the qualification. People often realise that entering the health service is not a very


good option. If the Government announced in the spring an increase in bursaries, it would make a considerable difference in persuading people to enter the health service rather than other professions.
Fourthly, we ought to reward those who have stayed in the health service. A loyalty payment, a bonus or a back payment of the money that should have been paid last year or the year before—not a huge amount, but something in the hand that said, "Thank you for sticking with us through hard times; things are getting better and we realise it"—would be much appreciated. Fifthly, about 70,000 professionals who have left the health service but remained in the country and are not past retirement age would, given the right encouragement, return to work in the service. We ought to pay them an incentive to return. We should pay more to those who enter the health service, more to those who stay in it, and more to those who return.

Mr. Andrew George: I declare an interest, as my wife is a nurse. One issue that is often overlooked in seeking to retain, recruit and encourage the re-entry of nurses into the profession is the cost to nurses of training and retraining. They are treated as if they were highly paid professionals. Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that nurses often have to undertake training in their own time and at their own expense? In effect, they are being asked to pay for the right to be poorly paid, which adds insult to injury.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows more about that issue than most. I, too, declare a slight interest, because people in my office have spoken to my hon. Friend's wife over the past couple of days to check what is going on in nursing in rural areas, to ensure that we are not just picking up information from inner-city constituencies. The situation that my hon. Friend describes is a scandal. I know of no other profession in which one is expected to retrain in one's own time or, effectively, at one's own expense. We are short of 12,000 nurses and desperate for people such as my hon. Friend's wife to work for the health service, yet we tell them that we will not pay them to get back up to speed if they want to return. That is not acceptable, and would not be in any other profession.
My hon. Friends and I have put on the table two procedural but important propositions about the way in which this place should deal with public sector pay reviews. First, in the past—I understand why—pay review body recommendations have gone to the Prime Minister, then the Chancellor and have been finally decided by the Cabinet. The House has never had an opportunity to decide such matters. We vote willingly on our own pay, but are never given the chance to vote on key public sector pay—whether it be of the armed forces, teachers, senior officials such as judges, or people who work in the health service.
Liberal Democrat Members are clear that, whatever the pay review body's recommendations, they should never be turned down unless Parliament agrees. If we are all asked to go through the Lobby in favour of or against the recommendation of a pay review body, the views of the country will be far more clearly reflected than if the Government take a possibly partisan decision which often favours the short-term economic interest as opposed to the long-term interest of the nation.
From the spring, there will be a Parliament in Edinburgh and assemblies in Cardiff and Belfast. We shall have four health services, accountable to local representatives. We have always believed that the health service should be more accountable. Therefore, logically, the pay review body should report to the Parliament in Edinburgh and the assemblies in Cardiff and Belfast, as well as to this place, so that what is right for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England can be decided by the people in those places on the basis of the particular facts. Different recruitment and retention problems and different mixes of professions need different solutions.
Although there are expert groups on nurses, midwives and health visitors, no one has ever compared their pay with that of cleaners or trust chairs. People who chair trust boards, who receive £120,000 a year, have had large pay increases. Yet, at the bottom of the scale, people have ended up on £12,000 a year following pay increases of 2.5 per cent. We take the very strong view that the health service will work together and feel like a team only when everybody's pay is considered collectively and seen to be fair.
We all know—it is almost trite to say—that the United Kingdom spends 5.8 per cent. of its gross domestic product on the public health service and about 6.9 per cent. on health care in total. We are halfway up the league table of European Union countries in public spending on health care, and 13th out of the 15 in total spending. The public are saying to us very loudly, "We want to spend more on the health service." We cannot divorce the pressure for better pay from the fact that the public are willing the health service to receive more. A huge majority of people believe that we need to spend more of our national wealth on our national health.
Health professionals have a good case when they say that, as they are frontline workers who do life-or-death jobs, it is reasonable that their pay should be compared with that of people who do similarly important public service jobs, and with the average wage of the work force as a whole. Last year, while a grade D clinical nurse was paid £12,635, a fire fighter's starting salary was £14,500, and a police officer's and a qualified ambulance worker's £15,500. A teacher's starting salary, at more than £13,000, was also higher than that of a nurse, midwife or health visitor. The average wage was more than £20,000, and the average graduate starting salary—now, all nurses are graduates—was about £16,500.
Since the beginning of the 1980s, the pay of a nurse or midwife has slipped from about three quarters of average pay to much nearer half. I do not think the country thinks that that is acceptable. We must restore the status that is recognised by pay. It is no good saying, as the Government are saying to teachers, that people are very important, while not giving them the money in order that they may do their important job properly.
I do not want to go into the details of the practices to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives alluded, but it nonsensical that nurses should be better off leaving the health service and then returning for regular part-time agency work. That is undermining the health service. However good such agency nurses or midwives may be, they are not part of the team, do not know the patients in the same way and are not present all the time. Everyone in the health service agrees that the doubling of reliance on agency nurses, which was corroborated in figures in a


written answer to me just before Christmas, is an unacceptable trend which ought to be ended—let alone the practices of training in one's own time and the like.
The Government keep on saying that if staff are given more money, there will be less for patient care.

Mr. Bob Russell: What are staff for?

Mr. Hughes: Indeed. Patient care can be delivered only if staff are available: it is not a case of either/or. Wages are a significant part of the health service's budget because a large number of staff are needed to deliver high-quality care. There are two components to the staff issue: we need both enough staff and high-quality staff. If we have both, good patient care can be provided in pretty grim conditions. Buildings can be dire, but if equipment and staff are up to the job, people's lives can be saved and the quality of their lives significantly improved.
I hope that, in this Parliament, we do not experience the dishonesty that we experienced twice in the last Parliament. In the last Parliament, the Government said, "We will act on the pay recommendations, but the money will have to come out of existing budgets: we will not give you any more." The same has often been done in the case of teachers. Local authorities have been told that they can pay teachers more, but will have far less money for other purposes as a result.
I am afraid that the Government have already perpetrated a fiddle. In November, the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn)—now promoted to the Cabinet—announced the new criteria, or terms of reference, for the pay review body. He had changed those criteria, adding requirements for the body to take into account such factors as the Government's inflation targets, and also to take into account not just the need to recruit, retain and motivate staff, but spending limits.
In the past, the pay review body has always said that its job is to recommend fair pay and conditions for staff, and not to say that, although it would like to recommend a certain sum, it cannot do so, because the Government have said that only so much is available. I fear that, even if the Government implement in full and immediately all that the pay review body has recommended this year, the body will not be allowed to say what the health service requires as it did in the past, because its goalposts have been moved.
Pay for those in the health service should constitute what is needed to recruit and retain the staff who are required to do the job—in the real world, where people must meet real bills. I hope that today's debate will reflect the pressure from the country as a whole, and the public's wish for us not just to say good things about our health service workers, but to pay them properly so that they come, and stay, and come back, to do one of the most vital jobs that the country has to offer.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I think it would be fair to say that our magnificent victory on 1 May 1997 resulted not just from economic factors and the failure of the last Government, but from the fact that, for at least 10 years, many people had felt that it was high time we

had a change in order to save the national health service from the Tory Government who had been diminishing its role for so long. It is incumbent on every Labour Member to bear in mind the fact that we were elected for that specific reason—to save the national health service. We established it way back in the 1940s, and now, after 18 years of Tory rule, we must rebuild it.
It should also be remembered that last year the Labour Government decided to recognise the problems in the NHS, and to find sufficient money to put it back on its feet. It would be wrong to give the impression that we expected £21 billion to be allocated in the last Budget. I know of no hon. Member—and I include Tories and Liberal Democrats—who made any reference to such a figure. In fact, it is on record that the Tories' top figure was about £12 billion.
I believe that the Government's decision enables us to feel a little confident about the pay review recommendations for nurses and other NHS workers. I do not think that my speech, or that of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), will decide their fate; I think that the key ingredient in ensuring better pay for nurses was provided at the moment when the Government decided to allocate that £21 billion.
The Government may feel that the money should be spent in a certain way—that more should be spent in one area, and less in another. Let me emphasise again, as I have for several months, that the decision on pay for nurses and others—including those who clean the wards, for instance—will be a defining factor for the next three years. We cannot afford to hear, day in, day out, arguments from those who are at the sharp end in the NHS.
Unlike the Liberals, who cannot put a real figure on their spending proposals because they spent their extra penny on tax many months ago, the Government must think in terms of an increase of no less than 10 per cent. for nurses and others at the bottom of the pay scale. I hope that it will be more. If it is true that we are 12,000 nurses short, and that the NHS is short of staff at all levels, we must institute a regime that will enable us to change the position.
I agree with those who talk about getting rid of agency nurses. I will go further, and say that I do not approve of the pay review body, which was introduced by the Tory Government to solve some of their problems. I would much prefer the NHS trade unions to be able to engage in proper free collective bargaining like every other trade union. My hon. Friend the Minister should recognise that we have a crisis in the health service, that we must try to overcome it, and that in the next three years—in the run-up to the next election—we ought to be able to say that we not only found the necessary money for the NHS, but found enough for nurses, midwives and the rest.

Mr. Ken Purchase: I agree with what my hon. Friend is saying, but is it not also true that simply saying that there is more money on the table to attract nurses to the profession is not enough? We must recognise that, owing to the 18 years of neglect, training places have not been filled. They have been artificially repressed when the demand has been there. The present Government's task has been impeded by the actions of the last Government, to the point at which we cannot possibly obtain the number of nurses we need in



the time available. Training places must be opened up as a matter of urgency—although, at the same time, we must do as my hon. Friend suggests, and cajole the Government into paying our nurses more.

Mr. Skinner: There is no doubt about that. Just before the recess, I went to St. Thomas's hospital with a colleague who was ill, and I had the shock of my life. I have not spent a great deal of time in hospitals. It was late on a Thursday night, and about 30 people were queueing. Some had been involved in scuffles and the like. It should be noted that it was a Thursday, not a Friday, a Saturday or a Sunday. A nurse was trying to deal with all the people who were trying to get on to the casualty ward. My colleague, who turned out to have had a minor stroke, was taken in. During the two or three hours that I spent in the hospital, people with blood on their ties were shouting and bawling at the lone nurse who was trying to deal with the problems. I heard it said that there would be a three-hour wait for a doctor. This was at about 10 pm on a Thursday, in one of our largest hospitals, just over the river. I realised that the nurse was having some difficulty in handling the problem, so I went outside and had to cajole some of those people into realising that she was not responsible for the mess that night.
It is important that we do not finish up with one nurse at St. Thomas's hospital between 10 o'clock and 1 o'clock trying to deal with 30 people in the casualty department. I suppose that that situation could be mirrored throughout Britain. That is why training and all the rest have to go along with the other policies.
When he talked about England, Scotland, Wales and all the rest of it, the Liberal Democrat spokesman gave the impression that there might be different pay rates for different regions. I happen to be first and foremost a trade unionist and I do not want national pay negotiations to be broken up. It is conceivable that the existing method of pay bargaining will result in more and more break-up, with the result that pay can be negotiated locally. People will then get more pay in some parts of the country and, where unemployment rates are high, they will get considerably less. I can imagine some of the Liberal Democrat Members from Cornwall and the south-west, where pay is traditionally lower, playing merry hell if they found that pay negotiations had been broken up in that fashion. National pay rates are important across the board.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument and I have always said that there should be national pay negotiations and national pay rates—I took on the Tories about that when they were in power—but, as he is aware, from later this year, the health service in Scotland will be accountable to the Scottish Parliament. We are not talking about different regions in England, but the four countries of the United Kingdom—different nations. It will be illogical and completely against the wishes of the people if they cannot negotiate their own pay for their own health service. However, that does not mean that, throughout England, we break up the national pay strategy. I support him on that, but Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are different countries.

Mr. Skinner: Frankly, I do not go along with that fancy idea. People can call it devolution or whatever they like, but I used to be a coal miner before I came here and

I cannot conceive of a situation where, if we had a lot of pits in Scotland—we do not because the Tories closed most of them—we should have miners being paid one rate in Derbyshire and Yorkshire, another in Scotland and another in Wales. I am not in favour of that.
As a trade unionist, I believe that it is important that we have national pay negotiations. The moment that we have inroads into that proposal, the lowest common denominator in pay sets the pace. The result will be lower wages for all at the end, not the highest common factor.
When my hon. Friend the Minister winds up, and in his representations at other levels, will he bear it in mind that we have to strive to get rid of the internal market, to ensure that we get more nurses, to improve training, to have a pay increase of at least 10 per cent. for those at the bottom of the pay scale, and to ensure that the national pay scale system remains, irrespective of devolution and all the rest that is on stream?

Mr. Purchase: It is refreshing to hear analysis when there was a lack of it from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—in fact, the hon. Gentleman was determined not to engage in any analysis or to blame anyone.
Does my hon. Friend accept that the greater problem in the NHS is the lack of acute beds, which were systematically closed year on year in every health district in the British Isles? Throughout the period of Conservative rule, those acute beds were wasted away. During the current crisis, the problem is not just at the front of the house—my hon. Friend referred to accident and emergency—but at the back of the house, where the beds have not been available, with the result that people have been stuck on trolleys in corridors. Does he not accept that that is a critical part of the problem?

Mr. Skinner: Everyone knows that that is one of the problems that we have to resolve. That is one reason why the £21 billion was important. The decision by the Labour Government in the past few months to find £21 billion can help us to resolve that issue. It is one that can be resolved only if the Government take on the system within the NHS that was left to us by the Tory Government, which meant that all those decisions could be taken, that all the trusts could be set up and that the power that used to exist in the NHS was disseminated through the trusts. We have to deal with that as well.
I welcome the fact that we have that additional money to spend. I hope that it will be spent wisely and that we will ensure that, at the core at what we do in the NHS, those people who provide the services will get a much better pay deal as a result of the efforts of the Government to find sufficient money, as they have during the past few months.

Mr. David Amess: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on his success in the ballot. The debate is important. I also welcome the Minister of State to his first opportunity to show his ability at the Dispatch Box.
It is interesting to note the Labour Members who are present; I put aside the Minister and I do not really know the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins), but I assume that he is his Parliamentary


Private Secretary. At least I know where I stand with the other four Members who are present—that will damage their careers. We certainly know where we stand with the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase); I forgot the Whip, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall).
I do not know whether the father of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) would have been pleased with what he said to the Minister for Local Government and Housing yesterday about rate capping. I did not agree with a word that the hon. Gentleman said, but at least he had the guts to take on his own Minister. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) was first elected at the same time as me, although we share nothing in common politically, except perhaps on animal welfare. He was entirely right before Christmas in wanting a debate on the bombing of Iraq. Those four hon. Members are certainly not part of the rubbish that was sold to the British people on 1 May.
I am delighted that the Liberal party has initiated the debate. I am somewhat confused about the position of the Liberal party these days. This morning is a perfect opportunity to find out where it stands. One of its Members, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), was made a privy councillor in the new year's honours list. I congratulate him on that. Over the weekend, he was interviewed on television. He dismissed completely all the difficulties of the Government over the Christmas period and said that he would continue to support the Labour party as long as it continued with its policies on health and education. What we have heard this morning does not seem to bear out that out—and that privy councillor was sitting here earlier. As ever, the Liberal party wants to have its cake and eat it.

Dr. Evan Harris: Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Amess: Like all politicians, we want to be loved, but what on earth does the Liberal party stand for?

Dr. Harris: Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Amess: The Liberal Democrat party. The hon. Member for Oxford, East or whatever it is—

Dr. Harris: Oxford, West and Abingdon.

Mr. Amess: The hon. Member for Oxford, East—

Dr. Harris: Oxford, West and Abingdon.

Mr. Amess: —and his colleagues have changed the name of their political party on four occasions, so, okay, it is now the Liberal Democrat party, but all I say to the hon. Gentleman, who was elected on 1 May 1997, is that we want to know where the Liberal party stands on the issue. Does it support the Labour Government? Does its leader want a position in the Cabinet, or, this morning, are we to take seriously—its Members were massed on two Benches—its attack on Her Majesty's Government?
I know that, when the Minister of State stands up, he is going to have quite a bit of briefing that will blame everything on the 18 years of the Conservative

Government and say nothing at all about the Liberal party. I do not think that Conservatives and the rest of the country will accept that.
Like the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Bolsover, I should like to pay tribute to the work done by health visitors, nurses and midwives in the United Kingdom. We owe all of them a great debt of gratitude. However, I should like to deal with the difficult matter of pay, which is all about management of the economy and setting priorities, which the Liberals, or the Liberal Democrats—unlike the hon. Member for Bolsover, who at least clearly stated his priorities—never want to face up to.
As hon. Members will know, nurses are the backbone of the national health service and provide 80 per cent. of direct patient care. However, there are between 12,000 and 13,000 empty nursing posts in Britain. Moreover, the turnover rate of registered nurses is high—currently at 21 per cent., whereas it was 12 per cent. in 1992.
There are also widespread problems in recruiting nurses. The Government know all about those problems. A survey of 73 NHS trusts, shows that 78 per cent. of trusts now report recruitment problems. The percentage reporting such problems was just above 50 per cent. in 1997 and was 33 per cent. in 1996. The statistics show that, regardless of what the Minister says today, there is a growing recruitment crisis. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, the nursing profession also faces a "retirement bulge".
The first brief that I shall use today came from the Royal College of Nursing, which would have supplied the brief to any hon. Member who asked for it. That organisation states that
The Government's decision in January 1998 to stage the nurses' pay award"—

Dr. Harris: And in January 1997.

Mr. Amess: Yes. However, the brief states that the decision in 1998
had a devastating effect on nurses' morale.
The hon. Member for Oxford, East and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), supported by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), wants to attack not only the Conservatives but the Government. The Liberal Democrats want to have their cake and eat it.

Dr. Peter Brand: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Amess: Yes, I shall give way to a fellow Health Select Committee member, who is also a practising doctor and is working so hard.

Dr. Brand: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am especially grateful that he has now started to talk about nurses' pay. He has listed a number of problems in nursing. Does he accept that one of the issues affecting not only recruitment but retention of nurses is the constant regrading process, in which senior nurses have to apply for their jobs and are reappointed at a lower grade? It is the most demoralising process for a professional. Does he agree also that that process is a


consequence of trusts being told to do their own thing—thereby destroying a national pay and career structure in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Amess: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I was a Member of Parliament when nurse regrading was developed. Like the Secretary of State—who takes responsibility for everything that happens in his Department—I should be very happy to defend the previous Government's 18 years in office. However, nurse grading is not the straightforward matter that the hon. Gentleman implies that it is.
The Royal College of Nursing wants specifically to compare nurse grading with teacher grading. The college believes that the position of nurses has become much worse compared to that of teachers. I do not know whether the Minister thinks that it is sensible to have such a relative decline.
The Royal College of Nursing believes that the only way in which nurses can earn extra money is by working unsociable and extra hours. The college believes that it is wrong for such a situation to continue, and that retention of nurses would be much improved if there were a real career development plan. Perhaps the Minister will be able today to tell us about such a plan. The Royal College of Nursing also wants the Government to develop family-friendly employment policies, and believes that serious health and safety priorities in the NHS must be addressed.
Two months ago, the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), the parliamentary leader of the Scottish National party, sat next to me at a midwife rally, which was an interesting occasion. Such rallies were held regularly throughout the 18 years of the Conservative Government, and Labour Members and spokesmen were always there to address the masses, by whom they were applauded. Two months ago, when I attended, and spoke to, a rally, some Labour Members showed up, although no Minister was available to do so.

Mr. Skinner: I was there.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I was there.

Mr. Amess: I know that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was there, and that he received a good reception.

Mr. Alan Duncan: I was there, too.

Mr. Amess: Yes, I know. However, I should like to deal with the point about the Minister not being at the rally. During the rally, the Health Secretary's special adviser came in, looking extremely worried, and passed a bit of paper to the front of the audience. The audience was subsequently told that Baroness Hayman would meet a delegation a little later in the day. My word, it certainly takes great guts and courage to meet a delegation privately.
The Government did not say to the electorate, "Hang on; we'll have to wait two years for reform because the Conservatives have left the health service in a terrible mess. It is very sad that people are dying and operations are not being performed, but you'll have to wait at least

two years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that 1999 is the year of delivery, and we can't do anything immediately." The Government should have had the courage during the general election to face up to that difficult audience.
I owe a great debt of gratitude to midwives. The rally that I attended two months ago was attended also by midwives from Southend and from my former constituency of Basildon. Midwives in Southend would like me to say that the midwifery situation there is good. Southend hospital does not have problems in recruiting midwives. Midwives from Southend were at the rally to support midwives in Basildon.
I was present at the birth of all five of my children, all of whom were delivered at Basildon hospital, and some of the midwives at the hospital have become great friends of mine. Midwives at Basildon face grave problems, which are shared by midwives across the country. In the past five years in the United Kingdom, for example, there has been a decrease of 2,500 in the number of midwives. Increasing numbers of midwives—a 13 per cent. increase in the past 10 years—are working part time. There is also a high wastage rate of midwifery students.
Health visitors are perhaps not as well represented as the other two groups of health service workers. Nevertheless, they, too, do a very valuable job.
I tell the Minister that I do not doubt for one minute that the Labour Government are genuine in their aspirations. On his return to the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to be judged not on the Government's difficulties during the Christmas recess but on his achievements in health and education. I should be more than happy to make such a judgment. The British people, too, will make such a judgment.
It was a gross deception, on 1 May 1997, to give the British people the impression that the health service would be transformed quickly. The Secretary of State has now accepted that the health service is in crisis. Nevertheless, about six weeks ago, the Minister for Public Health said that there is no rationing in the health service. That statement was laughable. The Government have to be more straightforward in dealing with the difficulties in the health service.
The wonderful men and women working in the health service are of course overworked and underpaid, as health service workers always have been. Ultimately, however, it will be up to the Government to tell us their priorities. Achieving those priorities will depend entirely on the Government's management of the economy. The press has recently reported rumours about giving certainly student nurses a substantial pay increase. I should welcome such an increase. I welcome also the opportunity provided today by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to share our views on such important matters.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on securing the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) for his concern for my career. I am not too worried about that. My career suffered long ago because I speak my mind. I propose to do the same in this debate. His difficulty was


his failure to speak his mind when the Conservatives were in power. He is still trying to draw a veil over their poor record on the NHS.
I am proud to be a vice-chairman of the Royal College of Midwives. Our midwives do a magnificent job and provide an outstanding service—perhaps the best in the world. They save many lives and I should like, as well as their wonderful service here, their skills to be exported worldwide. They provide terrific value for money, caring for two for the price of one. In more senses than one, that should be regarded as new labour.
Midwives should not be taken for granted as they are. In recent years, they have suffered a serious deterioration in pay and working conditions. The pay of midwives, nurses and health visitors has slipped behind that of comparable professions since the 1980s. As I pointed out to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Monday, their pay has slipped over the past decade from 85 to 76 per cent. of average earnings.
There are two reasons why midwives' pay has not kept pace with other public sector pay. The first is the local pay arrangements set up by the previous Government. The trusts simply did not pay. They were prepared to pay for more managers and to become more business-oriented, but they ignored their staff and did not pay extra to nurses and midwives. The second factor is the "Changing Childbirth" report, with which I agree. It dealt with important issues that we must come back to. Greater flexibility and choice and more midwifery support are important. "Changing Childbirth" gave midwives more responsibility, but, instead of being paid more for it, many of them were paid less. They were cheated and did not even receive the minimum F grade that they were supposed to get. Some trusts paid the minimum F grade by lowering staff from G grade. That has resulted in shortages so serious that the Audit Commission questioned in its 1997 report whether there were enough midwives nationally to
provide a safe service and adequate support to women".
The number of midwives registered with the United Kingdom Central Council has fallen by 2,500 over the past five years to the lowest figure this decade. Some 60 per cent. of qualified midwives are not practising and there is a 21 per cent. turnover rate of nurses and midwives according to the Nursing Times this month. That shows the extent of the shortages. Only one midwife in 10 is under 30. That shows the failure to recruit to midwifery. Up to 25 per cent. of midwives could retire in the next five to 10 years. That shows how serious the crisis is. Nearly 50 per cent. of midwives work part time—an increase of 13 per cent. over the past 10 years. I agree that more flexibility is needed in the service, but there is clearly a shortage.
I see that the Whip wants me to wind up within three minutes, so I shall keep my remarks brief. The shortages are serious. The increased pressures that they put on midwives have led to problems of stress in the workplace and an increase in staff sickness. Many are not staying in the profession because of that.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that this is a defining moment for the Government. The NHS is vital to our society. It is much loved by the people and it is vital electorally. Getting it

right means putting all the pieces of the jigsaw in place. The Government have made a good start by putting in more cash—three times more than the Liberal Democrats asked for in their manifesto.

Mr. David Rendel: rose—

Mr. Cohen: I am sorry, but I do not have the time.
Getting rid of the internal market and the business approach are good steps, but there are three other pieces of the jigsaw to be filled in: more beds, because they were cut too much; more training for nurses, midwives and doctors; and more pay. Proper pay is essential to attract and retain people. I repeat the call that I made earlier this week. We need a substantial pay rise above inflation for nurses and midwives.

Dr. Evan Harris: I shall concentrate on the pay award for nurses and midwives, because that is what people will be expecting to hear about. Failing to invest in decent pay for nurses is a huge false economy. The issue is not whether the pay rise is affordable, but whether not giving a decent and fair pay rise is affordable. People do not understand why that cannot be done.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) talked about the loss of beds. He gave the impression that they were lost because people went around with screwdrivers dismantling them. They were lost because nurses were lost. The hardware is there, but the nurses to staff the beds are lacking. We shall not be able to increase the number of beds available in the NHS unless we bring nurses back. The beds crisis in the NHS that the Secretary of State speaks of is caused by a nursing staff crisis. We have to make the necessary investment.
It will not be acceptable for the Government to pull a stunt when the pay award is announced. Increasing pay for the lowest-paid nurses may be welcome, but it will not be enough. It will be a cheap option, because increasing the pay of the cheapest is not the same as dealing with the middle-ranking nurses, who are leaving in large numbers. Implementing the pay award in full will not be enough without some atonement for the staging of the pay award this year.
When the Conservatives staged the pay award in January 1997, the then shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith)—the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) should be aware that I am the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon—roundly condemned the decision, saying that it was the price of economic failure. A year later, a Labour Government did the same. The gap between expectations and delivery demoralised nurses. Not only should the Government not stage this year's award—I do not think that they would dare—but they should return to each nurse the £250 that they lost because of the staging in 1997 and 1998 and call it a "debt of atonement". We have still not heard an apology from the Government to the nurses and to the patients who have suffered from the lack of nurses. Cash will mean more than just an apology.
The hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) repeated like a broken record the arguments about the Government's generosity


in funding the NHS. There has been no such generosity over the past two years, which, added to the previous 18 years, have brought the NHS to its current state. Library figures, which the Government have never challenged, show that the Government's real-terms increase in funding for the NHS in England in 1997–98 and 1998–99 is around 2.4 per cent. per year, compared with the Conservative record over 18 years of 3.1 per cent.—a level of funding that brought the NHS to its knees. Even the generous increases to come in the next three years will produce a real-terms increase in funding over this Parliament of only 3.7 per cent. That extra 0.6 per cent. compared to the Tory record does not make the difference between saving the NHS and failing to do so. My local health service has told me that, next year, in the first year after the comprehensive spending review, it will have discretionary spending of only 1 per cent. in real terms with which to give nurses a decent pay award above inflation. The Government should give serious consideration to providing extra revenue from the forecast Treasury surplus to allow health authorities to fund a fair pay award for nurses and retain some extra funding for growth in services, particularly mental health services.
I conclude by urging the Government not only to be fair, but to recognise the wrongs that have been done both during their period in office and the Conservative party's period in office. They must recognise that we shall not have a decent health service unless we are prepared to pay for it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, we must start the debate about how we are to raise the percentage of gross domestic product that we spend on the health service so that the service can meet the expectations of patients, users, relatives and carers in this country.
The Government must take urgent measures not only on pay but on the whole approach taken to nurses and midwives to ensure that the NHS is not stopped from developing by a short-sighted false economy and a shortage of the professionals upon whose hard work and dedication patients and those responsible for the running of the NHS all depend.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on ensuring that we have a chance to debate the staff of the NHS. I believe firmly that the Government were elected on pledges, and the backbone of our pledges was on the NHS. That is crucial, and we must never lose sight of that. In fairness to the Government, everyone should support and welcome the £21 billion that has gone towards saving the NHS. The NHS has been neglected over 18 years. It was not at the forefront of the previous Government's thinking, and their support for the NHS dropped year on year. We have seen a revival of the NHS, and we can all be proud of that £21 billion.

Mr. Rendel: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of that money at least will be wasted by the Government's failure to put money into local authorities, which will mean cuts in social services and therefore more health service spending?

Mr. Hoyle: I am sorry that I gave way if that is the best that we will get this morning. It is about the NHS,

and supporting the NHS is the £21 billion that is there for the NHS to spend. We must remember the staff, who ought to be at the forefront of our minds. I believe that the Government take on that responsibility well. The Government will ensure that the staff are happy because if the staff are unhappy the NHS will fail to work. We must bring forward those recommendations to ensure that we attract people to the NHS and then retain them. Those are the crucial messages that we must send out—not only have the Government put in £21 billion, but we care about the NHS workers, and that will come across loud and clear when my hon. Friend the Minister replies.
I should like my hon. Friend the Minister of State to congratulate the staff of the Chorley and South Ribble hospital on the way in which they have managed to cope with the flu epidemic in the north-west. Those dedicated and loyal staff ensured that the hospital remained open, and I wish to put on the record the House's congratulations to them on the work they put in over Christmas. Christmas is a time when people expect to be with their families, but the staff did not hesitate or shrink from the job they are paid to do. They came in and volunteered to keep the hospital going. It would be nice if we could reward their dedication somewhere along the line.
The NHS is not only about nurses but about doctors, auxiliaries, porters, and everyone involved who plays a part. It is important to keep the NHS together and continue to reward the staff. We must ensure that the Government never turn away from that pledge. I was proud to be elected in 1997 and I was proud to see the investment in the NHS to ensure that it has a viable future—a future in which the Government can take pride. I hope that we can go into the next election with a clean record on health.
There is always more that we can do. There always will be matters on which people will say that we are failing. That will continue as health evolves. There always will be a need for more funding. I know that we will not shrink from that, and I am proud to have been elected into this Labour Government.

Mr. Alan Duncan: First, I welcome the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) to the Dispatch Box. We served on the Select Committee on Social Security together and it is good to have the opportunity to spar with him again. We can see a pattern emerging here. Whenever the Government are in crisis and a Minister resigns, we lose someone from the health team. A Minister goes and a new one comes. In that spirit, I wish the Minister of State continuing and rapid promotion.
We have a lot to thank the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for this morning, as he has raised this very important topic. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am ever reasonable and it is more often than not that I agree with him—particularly with his analysis of the problems that the NHS faces, and his reasonable attacks on the Government for failing to admit that rationing inevitably exists in the NHS. I disagree with some of the solutions that he advocates, and he fails particularly to explain how the NHS can be properly funded. Calling always for more is one of the privileges


of permanent opposition. I can see the merits of the wish of the hon. Gentleman for Parliament to vote on pay levels but, again, I must ask him where the money would come from. He never says.
The hon. Gentleman did not say much about midwives, although that is one of the topics of his debate. However, I understand that he was pressed for time. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) pointed out that I have spoken to midwives a number of times, and they are indignant at the way in which their case been handled by the Government. A Minister would not even turn up to either of their two lobbies of Parliament, and they feel strongly that they need a re-evaluation of their grading.
Midwives also feel strongly that childbirth is not just about going to modern, central hospitals—it is about home births. I say that with feeling, as I was a home birth. Believe it or not, I was a 10 lb baby. I do not quite know what went wrong since. [Interruption.] I see my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) coming in. I do not know what size of baby he was.
The debate is largely about nurses, and their plight is critical. The Royal College of Nursing estimates that, across Britain, 12,000 to 13,000 full-time posts are unfilled. The turnover of nurses leaving their jobs has dramatically increased since the general election; so, indeed—in a survey of NHS trusts—has their judgment as to whether or not they have a recruitment problem dramatically increased since the general election on 1 May 1997. Whereas about 33 per cent. thought that they had a problem, it is now 78 per cent. I fear that it is creeping up to 100 per cent. who feel that they have a problem.
As the Royal College of Nursing has said, the decision in January 1998 to stage the pay award was absolutely devastating to morale. Nurses feel that that was a betrayal of everything that they were promised by the Labour party in opposition. It is the policy of Her Majesty's official Opposition to say that the Government must honour any pay review recommendation in full, and do it in one go without staging. In that sense, we agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and with the first two points that he outlined this morning.
I must pass swiftly over what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said. He made a lot of noise and called for a lot more. He is either in tune with the Labour Government or he is, once again, split from it. We shall soon find out on which side of that divide he sits.
The plight of nurses, midwives and health visitors is but a part of a set of wider problems in the NHS that are made much worse by the Government. When the Government are told that a hospital should stay open, they shut it. When they are told that a hospital should shut, they keep it open. Their pressure on the whole system to fiddle the waiting list figures is affecting patient care for the worse. The recruitment and retention problem in the nursing profession has been made critical by those actions. They have patients waiting on trolleys and corpses in container coolers waiting to be buried. What the Government do for nurses, midwives and health visitors will be a crucial test for them. We and the country are waiting to see whether they pass or fail this critical test.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I welcome the opportunity to respond to this important debate on a key group of national health service staff who do such a tremendous job, often in less than ideal circumstances. Like other hon. Members, I shall concentrate on nurses, midwives and health visitors, but I, too, acknowledge the contribution of all who work in the health service throughout the year.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on his success in obtaining the debate. However, his comments and those of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) would have had more credibility if those hon. Gentlemen had had the grace to acknowledge what the Government have done and the extent to which we have exceeded the promises made by the Liberal Democrats at the last election.
In their election manifesto, the Liberal Democrats promised to spend an extra £540 million each year on the NHS. In our first two years, we have put in an extra £2 billion. As my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) and for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) said, over the next three years, we shall put in an extra £21 billion, which is far and away more than the Liberal Democrats ever promised.
I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) for his kind words. His promises would have more credibility if we all had shorter memories.
The background to today's debate is, in part, the recent pressure on the NHS and on emergency admissions in particular. In a statement to the House on Monday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acknowledged the impact of the recent surge in the numbers of people needing to visit their doctor, call an ambulance or be admitted to hospital. He paid tribute to all the NHS staff who are coping, despite the fact that their own numbers have been depleted through illness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley invited me to congratulate staff in his local hospital. I send my congratulations to all the staff who have worked so hard over recent weeks.
My right hon. Friend set out the measures that have been taken to cope with winter pressures. Some £159 million has been allocated for schemes to provide extra beds, more round-the-clock operations, early discharge schemes supported by community nurses, and partnership projects with social services. Last week, we published details of almost 2,200 schemes being carried out by health authorities. Today, we have published further details of 185 partnership schemes being carried out jointly by the health service and local social service departments in a combined effort to deal with winter pressures.
Over the past week, parts of the NHS with particular problems that could be eased by extra cash have been given access to the £50 million contingency fund. Those measures are making a real difference to the ability of the NHS to cope with the present situation.
All over the country, people are working flat out to deal with winter pressures. The publication of the joint partnership proposals today shows that they are not doing so on their own. People working in social service departments in local councils are doing their bit to bolster


those efforts. Huge demands on the NHS are being met by an unprecedented level of partnership between hospitals and councils.
In spite of those measures, the NHS is still under real pressure, and part of the problem is the shortage of nurses. Unlike our predecessors, this Government acknowledge that there is a shortage. We have put in place a range of measures to put things right in the medium to long term. There is no one-stop quick fix.
As the debate has highlighted, an imminent issue is the recommendations of the pay review body, which are due shortly. Despite the invitation of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, I am not sure that it would be a career-enhancing move if I announced the results of that process today. The House will understand that I cannot anticipate our response today. We shall respond at the appropriate time.

Dr. Harris: Would it not be a career-enhancing move, and would it not enhance the Government's reputation, if the Minister took this opportunity to apologise to the nurses and midwives in the health service for the staging of last year's pay award? He could do that without any commitment to the financial compensation that I mentioned earlier. Now is his opportunity.

Mr. Denham: In response to the hon. Gentleman, I shall set out the approach that we have taken in our evidence to the pay review body. As my right hon. Friend said on Monday, we hope that the independent review body will propose a settlement which is fair to nurses and midwives and affordable for the national health service, and which the Government will be able to implement in full. As we said in our evidence, there is a case for an enhanced increase in starting pay for newly qualified nurses.
The Government are pledged to modernise the NHS, to make it modern and dependable for the 21st century. The programme of modernisation will be delivered only with the support of staff, which is why we must ensure that we can recruit and retain staff, get the numbers of staff right and ensure that they are paid fairly.
Pay matters, of course, but it is not the only issue and it must be seen in its proper context. Most surveys of nurses show that there are many important factors in attracting them to work in the NHS, to stay in their jobs or to return. It does not diminish the importance that nurses attach to pay to recognise that those surveys raise issues that are often of equal or greater importance than pay. Other important issues for nurses include better resources to do the job, help with child care, more opportunities to develop skills, a better career structure and measures to tackle violence against staff.
The Government are taking action across the range of issues of concern to nurses and to the NHS. We are providing the funding to employ more nurses, we are taking action to increase nurse training and to improve the conditions of work for nurses, we are encouraging qualified nurses back into the nursing profession, we are taking action to improve the career prospects for nurses and we want to take further action on pay reform.
The roots of the current shortage of nurses lie in the previous Government's cut in the number of training places. Our own surveys carried out shortly after we came into office confirm that trusts were having difficulty

recruiting and retaining qualified nurses. We have put in place a raft of measures to put matters right, so that we can look forward to year-on-year increases in the number of qualified nurses, as a result of our commitment to nurse training.
An extra £60 million is being invested in nurse training next year and nursing students are being given favourable NHS funding support in comparison with other students. As part of the comprehensive spending review, we are investing an additional £18 billion in the NHS in England over the next three years, which will enable up to 15,000 more nurses to be taken on over the next three years, and an extra 6,000 additional nurse training places are planned to address the shortfall that we inherited.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman must forgive me—I have three minutes left.
I can refute the claim by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that the Government cut back by 3 per cent. a planned increase in the number of places for 1997–98. The reality is that, in January 1997, the then right hon. Member for Loughborough promised that there would be additional 1,300 places for new nurse training. Far from cutting back on that, we achieved an additional 1,418 nurses in training in that year.
The numbers applying for nurse training are increasing—16,800 students applied for Project 2000 nursing and midwifery courses in 1996–97 and almost 2,000 more applied in 1997–98.
We are not just increasing the number of training places. Some £50 million was allocated last September to expand the number of part-time nursing courses, provide bursaries to enable 2,700 enrolled nurses to upgrade their qualifications and provide opportunities and financial support for other NHS staff, such as health care assistants, to become qualified nurses. More than 1,000 staff will benefit from that scheme over the next three years.
The aim of providing up to 15,000 more nurses, midwives and health visitors is a challenging one. Training is one part of the answer, but we must also promote nursing as a career, attracting back nurses who have left the profession for whatever reason. More than 100,000 nurses are on the register but are not practising. Some of those nurses could return to nursing tomorrow, whereas others would need support in refreshing their professional skills. That is why, at the Royal College of Nursing congress last April, we announced a further £4 million for local investment in "return to practice" initiatives, building on an allocation of £10.5 million in 1997 to support return to practice and continuing professional development.
As well as getting more people into nursing, the Government want to hold on to the nurses that we have. We expect employers to use family-friendly employment policies to respond to the demand for more flexible patterns of working, in order to secure and keep the staff that they need.
Those matters are important, but pay rates matter too. I said that we hope that the independent review body will propose a settlement that is fair to nurses and midwives and affordable for the NHS, and that the Government will be able to implement in full. We also recognise that we


need a modern, fair and effective pay system that supports us in paying nurses, midwives, health visitors and other NHS staff fairly, in a way that enables them to give their best for patients in a new, modern and dependable national health service.
When we came to office, the Government said that we wanted to return to national pay for the NHS if it could be matched with meaningful local flexibility. I know that many nurses and others working in the NHS share my wish for better career progression and more modern conditions of service that are relevant to the way in which people now work—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now move on to the debate on reform of the Select Committee system.

Select Committee Reform

11 am

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I am pleased to introduce this debate, especially when there is a growing view both inside this place and outside that by stealth the status and role of Parliament are being eroded. That is not any reflection upon any particular Administration, but it has been happening increasingly over recent decades.
Those of us who are jealous of our parliamentary role of scrutinising the Executive and voting supply want to see an opportunity to restore these parliamentary rights and duties. That is in line with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) when she was the Leader of the House and discussing the reform of Select Committees. She said
that (the Jopling Reforms) really only tinkered with the problem…There was little in Jopling to make parliament produce better legislation; there was nothing at all to make MPs more effective in holding the Executive to account. Those tasks will be Labour's true project for parliament.
One of the exciting challenges for this Administration is to leave an enduring legacy of having given Parliament new opportunities to scrutinise the Executive.
As we look back relatively recently, one of the great legacies—one of the few legacies that I would refer to from the period when Margaret Thatcher was in office—was the St. John-Stevas reforms, which created the present Select Committee system, and thank goodness for it. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will leave an enduring legacy, having further developed the Select Committee system during this Parliament.
Of course, the Select Committees are ancient. They have been used many times and it is wrong to suggest that they are a new idea. They have come into their own more recently as, inexorably, government has demonstrated a rapacious appetite in putting through legislation, minimising debate and exercising its role as the Executive. That is in the nature of things, human nature being what it is. However, our duty is to monitor, control, scrutinise, cajole and often criticise the conduct of whatever party is in government.
I want to canvass what are basically cultural changes that reflect the attitudes of Members and of others who are interested and active in politics and journalism. We must change our attitudes to the role of Members of Parliament. All too often people come to this place—I am talking also of our friends and loved ones—and say, for example, "I hope it won't be long before you are a Minister," or "It won't be long before you are a Minister." There is the presumption that in politics in the United Kingdom promotion means becoming a Minister.
I hope that we can create a culture whereby there is an alternative. For example, a Member might aspire to become the chairperson of a Select Committee; in other words, to head up a Select Committee. I think that that will come about, but I would like to move on the process.
Part of moving it on is the question of resources. One of my good friends said, "For goodness sake, Mackinlay, don't suggest that we should have more money." I will not make that suggestion because I think that the disparity between Ministers' pay and that of Members is constitutionally wrong. Basically, there should be no disparity. I am not advancing the idea that Chairmen of


Select Committees should have more pay, but I think that they need more resources and the facilities that go with office. I am talking not of trappings but facilities that will enable them to be better leaders of Select Committees.
I shall give one example. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, in the nature of his work—and that of his predecessors—has to visit many embassies and attend many functions. It is a waste of my hon. Friend's time and that of others, and wrong, that they must compete in the taxi queue when they need to be at the embassies of China or South Africa, for example. There should be the resource of a pool car, not as a matter of status but as common sense.
It is clear that Select Committee Chairmen need better office accommodation and personal back-up staff. Our friends in the Clerk's Department are clearly underresourced. Many of us recognise, particularly as we put more and more demands upon them, that we are not voting additional resources to their Department to enable them to meet the new tasks and challenges that we present to them as we become more diligent and more enthusiastic proponents of the Select Committee system. I hope that during the life of this Parliament these matters will be considered, followed by action and additional resources.
There is a case also for Members who serve on Select Committees to be given some additional resources. We are faced with the marshalling of papers and preparation for Select Committee hearings. I find that this preparation presents an enormous task. I feel sometimes that I have not gone into the Committee Room as sufficiently briefed and prepared as I would like to be because of a lack of sufficient back-up facilities. I hope that that might be considered.
I should also like to float an idea on which I have not concluded my view. The best Select Committee report, of course, is one that has been reached by consensus. However, we must recognise that sometimes there might be occasions for minority reports, not necessarily on a partisan basis. In exceptional circumstances where demonstrably there is a strongly held, reasonable but minority view, it may well be that there should be resources available to facilitate the minority. I stress that I am talking about a minority of view, not a party minority. Indeed, the view could be held by a member of the majority party.
I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider another matter that they might discuss through the usual channels with leaders of other parties: the selection of members of Select Committees and their Chairmen. I accept that I am a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs by patronage. I could be removed from it by the same source. I think that within the parliamentary Labour party, and its equivalent in the other parties, a selection of Members to serve on Select Committees should be made by Back-Benchers, not by party managers. Alternatively, and as I would prefer, there could be a new Committee of Selection exclusively drawn up of those who are not in the Executive and not on the Opposition Front Bench, who would then select Members to serve on Select Committees and recommend who should be their Chairmen.
I have always been somewhat cussed and difficult. As you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was instrumental, along with some Conservative Members and

my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—my hon. Friend would have liked to be in the Chamber but she is detained on other parliamentary business—in putting the late Sir Robert Adley in the Chair of the Transport Select Committee in the last Parliament. Sir Robert was very well qualified. However, we were told whom we should have as Chairman. One baulks at that. I accept that the alternative candidates were extremely good as well. However, I am rather proud that I was instrumental in ensuring that Sir Robert became the Chairman.
After Sir Robert's untimely and tragic death, we had Paul Channon, who we said was parachuted in to be Chairman. Paul Channon was a perfectly charming person and he emerged as an extremely good Chairman of the Committee in the previous Parliament. I am not talking about personalities, but it seems to be wrong that these appointments should be handed down from on high.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps this is a subject that is best kept to our respective biographies.

Mr. Mackinlay: I realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is a delicate subject. I shall move on—I get your drift.
We must also protect those on the Front Benches from falling into the temptation of the parliamentary sin of removing Members from Select Committees after a general election because they have not been deemed entirely helpful to the Executive. I hope that that practice will be reconsidered.
All hon. Members who have been members of Select Committees have felt, from time to time, that some witnesses have not been wholly frank. In exceptional cases, some have misled a Committee by not telling the truth. Part of the problem is that some witnesses do not understand the gravity of their attendance before the high court of Parliament. We should consider the automatic administration of the oath, which would emphasise that people have to tell the whole truth and that they are embarking on perjury if they do not. Alternatively, we could remind witnesses of the Sessional Orders that we pass at the beginning of each Parliament, which state:
if it shall appear that any person hath been tampering with any Witness, in respect of his evidence to be given to this House, or any Committee thereof, or directly or indirectly hath endeavoured to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence the same is declared to be a high crime and misdemeanour; and this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.
The language may be arcane and many centuries old, but the message still needs to be brought home: people should not impede witnesses' attendance at House of Commons Select Committees, and those who do attend must be candid with those Committees. We must find a way to underline that message.
One element of the Scotland Act 1998 is interesting. Although we have not included in that legislation the same parliamentary privileges and powers of contempt that exist in this House, the Act provides that recalcitrant witnesses before Committees of the Scottish Parliament can be prosecuted in the High Court. I prefer the ability of the House of Commons to deal with such matters, but it is interesting that a greater sanction to deal with people who are not candid will be available to the Scottish Parliament than in practice is available here at Westminster. Such a provision would also help people


who genuinely want to be candid with Parliament but who are nervous about the response of their employers, or other factors.
The House has a duty to foster and encourage bipartisanship in Select Committees. I think that most hon. Members approach their Committee duties in that spirit, but although we cannot legislate for it, sometimes we need to be reminded of it. There are some good examples of that bipartisan spirit in action. For instance, in the previous Parliament, the investigation into the Pergau dam affair produced a very critical report of the then Conservative Government. That report would not have emerged had not Conservative Members acted in a bipartisan manner and approached the investigation without fear, favour or partiality. All Governments must understand that it is the duty of Members of Parliament to approach Select Committee work in that spirit.
The value of that spirit came home to me in this Parliament. I have a good friend who is a member of the Government, although I stress that he is not a member of the foreign affairs team and I shall not embarrass him by naming his constituency. However, he said something interesting to me in connection with the investigation of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs into the so-called Sandline affair. His exact words were, "Mackinlay, I can't understand why you are asking all these questions or why you are pursuing this matter. You are a member of the premier parliamentary Committee: why don't you just enjoy it?" [Laughter.] He was not being malicious in any way, he was simply incredulous.
That remark will certainly appear in my memoirs. It shows how high is the mountain that we must climb to change the attitudes of members of the Executive and to persuade them that we have a duty to perform, and demonstrates that our membership of Committees is not exclusively a matter of going on trips abroad—the clear implication of my friend's remark. Government must accept scrutiny.
Other hon. Members who wish to speak on this subject will no doubt deal with ways in which Select Committees' role could be developed in terms of the legislative process, how Committees can better tackle Parliament's ancient duty of providing supply to the Crown, and how they might exert some influence on the details of Government. That was always our particular function, but as the functions of Government and the size of departmental budgets have grown so massive, to a great extent it has been lost.
An exception is the Public Accounts Committee. Its present Chairman is the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) and his predecessor was my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). That Committee, which conducts its scrutiny retrospectively, has performed an enduringly helpful role in Parliament, and it has contained some other highly distinguished members. It has long been accepted by the Executive, but we must borrow from its experiences and style of resources.
During the Foreign Affairs Committee investigation into the Sandline affair, it became clear to me that we needed someone comparable to the Comptroller and Auditor General—an officer empowered by Parliament to examine the details on behalf of the Committee and to

oblige people to furnish documents and give evidence. The considered report of such an officer would have made our hearings more relevant and focused and would have advanced the process of our examination.
I therefore believe that Select Committees dealing with difficult matters that consume much time should be able to appoint someone with the authority of Parliament to do the initial spade work on their behalf. That option should be available to all Select Committees. For example, although I have not served on it, I am sure that a Committee investigating the history of the BSE problem would justify the use of such an officer.
I welcome the use by some Committees of confirmatory hearings, which are basically informal and are not covered by Standing Orders. For example, the Select Committee on the Treasury spoke to the people involved with monetary policy, and the Select Committee on Education and Employment has also held comparable hearings. I should like the Foreign Affairs Committee to have the power at least to give confirmatory hearings to ambassadors. Of course, the Committee could not deal with the huge volume of appointments and would not want to, but the right to examine new ambassadors would be a welcome additional power.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Foreign Affairs Committee already has that right. There is nothing to prevent it from calling an ambassador to appear before it so that it can ask questions to determine his competence or otherwise.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I should like such a process to be relatively automatic, especially when the ambassador in question is the son-in-law of a Prime Minister. I was not a Member of the House at the time, but that was a glaring instance of an appointment that should have been scrutinised. I raise that example as a matter of history, as I am sure that it could not happen today. Even so, I believe that we should pursue the matter of confirmatory hearings.
Another subject with which the House must deal is the question of treaties, most of which are signed by royal prerogative and are not ratified by Parliament. I want that to change, and believe that it would be suitable for a Select Committee to examine treaties and make recommendations to Parliament.
The final point that I want to bounce off hon. Members is small but needs to be considered. When there has been an important public sitting of a Select Committee, I am not allowed to show anyone the verbatim report that is produced several days later. That is really frustrating, and inevitably the rule has been broken. I have no strong views about whether such a report should be produced by Gurney's or by Hansard—

Mr. Sheldon: Or on the internet.

Mr. Mackinlay: Or on the internet: as I say, I have no strong views on that, but, in a modern Parliament, we need to have the verbatim report the day after the sitting of a Committee. It should be a facility equivalent to that of the daily Hansard report, which in any event is a draft and therefore open to correction. We need that facility fairly immediately.
I hope that my remarks will be taken on board by my hon. Friend the Minister and by members of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. I hope that there will be other contributions to this debate both this morning and throughout the Session.

Mr. David Davis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on his insightful, incisive and dignified speech on a matter that is of considerable importance to the entire House.
On these occasions, it is also a convention to congratulate the hon. Member who has obtained the debate on doing so and, today, that is more than a mere convention because the timeliness of this debate is remarkable. The effectiveness of the way in which the House has carried out its duty of scrutiny has been reduced and not always for reasons that are in the Government's control. Sometimes, it has been reduced for extrinsic reasons, because powers have gone from the House to the European Union or other bodies and we understand that. However, it has also happened for intrinsic reasons.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the sheer volume of legislation, which makes it impossible for us to hear every detail of every Bill on the Floor of the House and forces legislation into Committee where, almost by definition, it is dealt with less effectively than it might be in the House.
There are other paradoxical ways in which scrutiny has been undermined. For example, the televising of the House has had a peculiar effect. In one respect, it has opened up the House for everyone to see. In another, it has introduced a soundbite culture, which has undermined the tradition of reasoned debate on which the House has prided itself for centuries and has thus undermined our ability to scrutinise.
There are other areas. I would not expect the Minister to agree, but pre-emptive referendums take away some of the bite of the argument once they have been carried out. There are also matters that might be the subject of political differences, so I will not stress them when dealing with this quintessentially House subject. However, the size of the Government's majority and the much-argued-about reluctance of some Ministers to come before the House have also undermined that scrutiny.
There are many reasons why this debate is timely but it is not so in only one respect, which is that it is on a Wednesday morning when a number of Chairmen of Select Committees, who are probably the people who would be most interested in the debate, are chairing meetings. I know of at least three Chairmen who would otherwise have been here to debate the issue.
The hon. Member for Thurrock referred kindly and accurately to the St. John-Stevas reforms of the early 1980s. On reflection, even the originators of those reforms and Lord Fawsley himself would accept that they achieved only half what they set out to do and, in some respects, the situation is even worse than that.
The nature of our scrutiny can be divided into two groups: policy and expenditure. The scrutiny of policy is handicapped for a number of reasons and, there, the reformers achieved about half of what they set out to do, for reasons that I shall outline. Given that the provision of supply was the origin of all the powers of the House and its primary function in the first instance, it is shameful

how we deal with our estimates procedures and exercise our powers over expenditure across Government as a whole, and within Ministries, as a major outcome of policy priorities.
The hon. Gentleman outlined the primary causes of those weaknesses, but I will resummarise them slightly differently, if he will forgive me. First, as he said, is the question of access to information. Of course, Select Committees have the right to summon people and papers and we all do so, but for most Committees—the Public Accounts Committee is a sterling exception—the acquisition of information is to some extent a matter of luck. It is a matter of leak, newspaper report, an indiscreet comment or something that a Minister lets slip; it is not a scientific process and it is not designed to sweep up all the information necessary to the House. The hon. Gentleman made a good point on that subject and I will return to it.
Secondly, on the resources to make use of that information, which is the one area on which I differ with the hon. Gentleman, given that this is the mother of Parliaments it is extraordinary that the resourcing of our Select Committees and the research support that they receive is just about the worst in the world, compared with comparable Houses elsewhere.
Parliamentary time is the third item, and I think that all Select Committee Chairmen are unanimous in saying that we do not give enough parliamentary time to Select Committees. Time on the Floor of the House is fundamental to the exercising of Select Committee powers. They do not have executive powers of their own. Their powers are those of information, exposure and argument and the best place to air those is still, I am glad to say, on the Floor of the House.
The final question is that of parliamentary rights. Select Committees have few rights and I shall propose a small right which will magnify their effectiveness.
On access to information, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's call for a parliamentary investigations officer of some sort—as he said, the equivalent of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who does a wonderful job for my Public Accounts Committee and for Parliament; or something between him and the ombudsman. It should be someone who has the right of access to all information and it is a worthwhile proposal, which I commend to the Government.
The Government have done some good as regards access to information for Select Committees. For example, for the PAC, they removed the idea of "Not for National Audit Office Eyes"—the Whitehall classification. That was a sensible and effective way to improve our scrutiny, and our suggestion would be a natural development from that.
I would go one step further. We have accounting officers in every Government Department who can be held accountable for the money that the Department spends. They appear before the Public Accounts Committee and the other Select Committees and they are held accountable for all the money spent, its proper use and so forth. There ought also to be an information officer in each Department, with the responsibility of drawing to the attention of a Select Committee information that he or she thinks appropriate. If, at some stage, information was not available—be it on Sandline or some other matter—


the Committee could ask that officer why it was not told and whether it was a matter of policy not to do so. That would put the onus of responsibility on the civil service.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the change of culture, but the culture of Whitehall is not that of disclosure. As the hon. Gentleman will remember well, when I was Minister with responsibility for Europe I spent a vast quantity of my time trying to ensure that all the other Departments provided the Select Committee on European Legislation with the right documents on time. It is extraordinary that a Minister should have to drive such a process; we could transform in one move the way in which Whitehall approaches that matter.
On resources, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman because there is indeed an argument for radically increasing the resources available to Select Committees. In the scrutiny process, they are up against enormous resources commanded by others. To take an example with which I was familiar, the European Legislation Committee had a few people to support it, but when I was a Minister, my Department, which dealt with the European Union, was probably twice its size. The disparity is clear and should be put right as that would add to the effectiveness and quality of scrutiny and to the quality of recommendations. That is a good thing for a self-confident Government because it will improve the quality of legislation.
In addition to increased resources for individual Committees, there should be a central resource—an extension of the policy and research divisions of our Library, which should be largely staffed by ex-civil servants, seconded civil servants and people who understand Ministry of Defence and Foreign Office issues and so forth and can move around the subjects. A Select Committee that faced a large, sudden demand on its time—be it the Foreign Affairs or the Social Services Committee—could then call down a resource. In particular, the central resource should have a strong financial function, because the involvement of Select Committees in the estimates procedure and the approval of supply is the weakest component of their, and the House's, activity.
The third problem is parliamentary time. A Select Committee that cannot command time on the Floor cannot command the attention of the public, unless it is dealing with something like Sandline and Sierra Leone. Hard cases make bad law; Sandline is not the example that we should be considering. It is the normal operation of Select Committees that should command newspaper interest, not only the exotic and the occasionally scandalous. Such a change would have a major effect. There has already been movement towards it by the allocation of some morning debates by the Liaison Committee, whose Chairman is here, for the debating of Select Committees reports.
A small change would dramatically enhance the effectiveness of Select Committee reports. On Tuesdays and Wednesdays of each parliamentary week, there is a ten-minute rule slot, which, when contested, takes about 35 minutes out of the parliamentary day. It is effective for highlighting the interests of Back Benchers. Why cannot we have about the same time, half an hour, on Monday for a Select Committee to present its report? We could perhaps have 10 minutes for the Chairman, five minutes for two other Members—perhaps also with provision for a minority

report—and 10 minutes for the Minister to reply. That would be in prime time at the beginning of the week when attention could be drawn to issues of concern to Select Committees and to the Government's response to them. It is a tiny fraction of parliamentary time, but it would change the culture of Select Committees to producing thoughtful, interesting, debatable, perhaps controversial, reports so that attention did not focus only on scandals and breakdowns of Government.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend knows that I sit on the Modernisation Select Committee, to which he referred. He also knows that it is considering an alternative or Main Committee, additional to our main Chamber; it would certainly never take over from the Chamber. Does he believe that that forum might allow many more excellent Select Committee reports to be considered? Does he support the proposal?

Mr. Davis: I thank my hon. Friend. No, I do not, for this straightforward reason. I know of the Australian experience; the four-page note from the clerk of the Australian Parliament points out that the Main Committee may have drawn attention away from the Floor of the House. Everything we do to promote the House's effective scrutiny of the Executive should focus on reinforcing the role of the Floor. That is how to make scrutiny most powerful—not using a Main Committee, which will only be looked at from time to time by lazy journalists.

Mr. Winterton: Where are they all?

Mr. Davis: Indeed, where are they?

Mr. Alan Clark: I am glad that my right hon. Friend gave that answer. Does he agree that of all the proposals before us, that of relegating business from this Chamber to a Main Committee is the most dangerous and insidious?

Mr. Davis: I agree, but my right hon. and hon. Friends tempt me off my main line of argument.
My last substantive point concerns the parliamentary rights of Select Committees. There is a serious problem with how Select Committees deal with the estimates procedure in particular. Our Standing Orders require that amendments to the estimates can only reduce them; they cannot vary them in any other way. That is understandable for the management of Government business and of the economy. Treasury Ministers must have the last word on the Government's aggregate spending, or government becomes meaningless in this day and age. However, we do not have to break that barrier to change the Standing Orders materially for the better.
After Select Committees have taken evidence on a Department's estimate, it is perfectly possible to allow them to recommend in an amendment for debate on the Floor that there should be virement, or movement between one departmental sub-heading and another. To pick an example completely outside my area of policy skill, in international development we might argue that we want to spend less on crisis management and more on crisis prevention, or less on Africa and more on Asia. Such large arguments about priority are the language of politics and it should be possible to conduct them on the Floor.


That would be possible and effective only if the Government had to answer the outcome of a Select Committee's evidence-taking on the Floor.
Of course, a Government with a majority will always be able to vote down such amendments, but Ministers would have to defend the explicit financial priorities of their Departments on the Floor, which is the focus of our scrutiny. This tiny change in Standing Orders would fundamentally change not only the relationship between Parliament and Government but that between Ministers and civil servants in Whitehall. From my own experience, I know that few non-Cabinet Ministers—that means those who have the time to think about things—get anywhere near the numbers involved in running their Departments or decisions on spending priorities.
The change would mean that when a Minister of State appears before a Select Committee to explain why his Department is spending so much money on, say, welfare to work and less on something else, it would suddenly be in the interest of the permanent secretary to ensure that the Minister is incredibly well briefed. The permanent secretary would not want what is really the power of the civil service debated across the Floor. It would be a change not only in the House's ability to scrutinise what the Government do but in the ability of Government to deliver on their policy promises, manifesto commitments and beliefs, which is why they are there in the first place.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend has not remarked, as I felt that he would, on whether Select Committees should be given the duty each year of considering the estimates of their Department. It would be not a voluntary but a specific duty to consider them before they are considered and passed by the House.

Mr. Davis: I would turn that round and make it a requirement that each estimate be approved by a Select Committee. The Committee could then decide for itself how much time to spend on the matter. I must press on.
I have one last comment for the Minister. It is difficult for Executives to give power away to Parliament so that it can scrutinise them and make their lives more difficult. But if I may say so, in the same spirit as the hon. Member for Thurrock, some of the greatest things that have happened in this Parliament happened when a Government made such a decision—for example, the small jewel of the Select Committee system today. If I may say so—I say this entirely selfishly—there is the large jewel of the Public Accounts Committee, whose Chairman is a member of the Opposition. That was the result of a decision by Gladstone which, at the time, must have been a difficult decision to make. However, it was a decision of great wisdom, which has lasted one and a half centuries. I see my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) nodding. Such a decision would be difficult for the Executive to make, but it would go down in history as a mark of the confidence of such an Executive and its respect for Parliament.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Right hon. and hon. Members may anticipate that, in line with practice, Front-Bench speeches should begin at about 10 minutes past 12, and I hope that, in order that everyone who wishes to speak in the debate may be included, hon. Members will keep an eye on that fact.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) is right. The decision to which he referred did so much to make 19th century and 20th century political life what we have come to expect. It was taken by a person who had great authority and power, and who realised the limitations of that. Had we seen rather more of that in this century, we might have been better placed. It was a wonderful decision.
I want briefly to refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden about expenditure. That is important. In the annual debates on the Public Accounts Committee—the right hon. Gentleman will introduce this year's debate tomorrow—I used to reproach all the Select Committees. It was my annual regret that they did not consider the amount that was being spent by Government in their areas. I would say, "For heaven's sake, just say, 'I am happy with the way that the Government are spending money in our area. Carry on.'" When the matter is put in that way, it shows how inadequate the examination really is.
We are moving towards resource accounting and that gives us the opportunity to consider all this afresh. It will show just how much has been spent in a particular area on which a Select Committee may have commented or reported, and how much has been spent in another area. The Select Committees may almost be forced to say whether that expenditure is right or wrong. I look forward to seeing that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) introduced today's debate splendidly. He rightly mentioned the need for a parallel career structure. Not so long ago, an important Select Committee Chairman gave up his post for a lowly position on the Front Bench. That is the kind of priority that the House has come to accept, but it need not always do so.
I understand the advantages of office as a way in which to find out how the whole thing works. But when one thinks of the power, opportunities, interest and tasks ahead, one realises that Select Committee Chairmen have a wonderful opportunity. Given the way in which Parliament has evolved during the past 10 or 20 years, there is no doubt that their role has grown in importance. This Parliament has probably seen the most important ever growth in the role of the Select Committee Chairman. I look forward to seeing that trend continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock rightly spent time on the suggestion of selection by Back Benchers; but the Select Committees themselves can take action. When the Liaison Committee was set up, there was an attempt to shoe-horn in a favourite of the then Prime Minister. As a senior member of the Liaison Committee, I immediately proposed Terence Higgins. Despite one or two people having some doubts in view of the patronage of a Prime Minister, he was voted in.
We have seen other things too. Robert Adley was a great loss; it was he who said that railway privatisation was a poll tax on wheels. It is a great pity that he has not been here during the past four or five years. Of course, we have here the hon. Member for Macclesfield, for whom we all have enormous admiration and affection. He was the object of a peculiar rule, instituted as the Macclesfield rule, which said that if one has been a


Select Committee Chairman for two Parliaments, one cannot stand again. It was such nonsense to create that absurd rule just to dispose of the hon. Gentleman, but, of course, he has rebounded, to the pleasure and joy of us all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock was right—bipartisanship is crucial. Select Committees consist of people who come in opposed to each other; they have to learn to take into account the facts. In order for the facts to overcome their prejudice, they must have respect not only for those facts, but for each other. That is of enormous importance. A good Chairman will ensure that such a relationship exists between Committee members.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) has done splendidly in the Select Committee on the Treasury. He took his Select Committee away for a weekend to discuss the future. Such bonding situations, where one has respect for the facts, are important. I know, because I was Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee nearly 20 years ago, and one of our tasks was to discover how to deal with monetarism in a way that was critical of it and respected the facts. We had confidence in each other and knew that the facts would determine our results, even if the Government of the day were not happy about that. That is of enormous importance and I want to see it continue.
With regard to staffing, my feeling is that one should have the special adviser that one wants. When I was a Select Committee Chairman, I said that anyone who wanted a special adviser should say whom he or she wanted and, as long as another name could be obtained if necessary, he or she could have any adviser whom he or she wanted. No one has ever refused to be a special adviser, so one can have the talent that one wants.
However, I agree that we need something more. We need someone in-house. We do not need long appointments, but appointments of three to five years, so that an area of expertise is developed. I do not fancy someone coming in from outside and being in a controlling position, but a three-to-five-year appointment in certain areas would allow such people to look out for things of which the Committee may not even have thought. That may be one way in which to proceed.
The Treasury and Civil Service Committee did splendidly with regard to confirmatory hearings. The example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock was not quite as good as I would have wished, because party politics would come into it; it would be hard to avoid that. But it should be a principle that one cannot appoint someone to public office without having the responsibility—not to consider their private life, because that does not concern us—to ensure that that person is competent, equipped and has the background that fits him for that office.
Finally, I come to the point that I make repeatedly. The hallmark of my present position as Chairman of the Liaison Committee is to get the evidence out quickly. That is enormously important. Uncorrected evidence should be produced the following morning. It is available to members, but not to the House. We have uncorrected evidence in Hansard; it simply goes through. But those who concern themselves with these matters—perhaps over-clever people, in the words of a former Chairman

of a Select Committee—think that there are questions of privilege. They feel that somebody might bring an action against the Liaison Committee Chairman. I have told them that I am prepared to accept such a challenge, were anyone foolish enough to make it. We are still working on that.
My task now is to get such evidence on the internet. Some of us have the internet and it is almost like having one's own library in one's room. One can see not only the reports but, even more importantly, the evidence. When the evidence comes three or four weeks later, no one bothers with it. If one had the evidence from the Governor of the Bank of England, the Foreign Secretary or whoever the following day, it would become part of the activity of the House. It would become part of questions for the Prime Minister and for others. The evidence as it is announced could be part of the kind of half-hour discussion that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden proposed. That is the sort of thing I want to see and I look forward to seeing it in due course.

Mr. Richard Allan: I shall approach the matter from the other end of the experience scale from the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I first entered the House in 1997. Since then, Select Committees have taken up a great deal of my time. I have been a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs and, more recently, I have been the Chairman of the Select Committee on Information, one of the domestic Committees. As a new Member, in common with many of my colleagues, I have found that the Select Committees are one of the great joys of the House. They are far better than most of us anticipated. They have an extraordinarily significant role in terms of holding the Executive to account. They are particularly relevant in a Parliament such as this where the Government have a large majority. That is a simple fact of life that I am not willing to dispute, and in that context, the role of the Select Committees takes on even greater stature than in a more marginal Parliament.
My experience on a departmental Committee has shown that there is an intellectual and factual rigor. There are debates around the facts rather than around partisan positions. That occurs far more often in Select Committees than in the Chamber. The experience of grilling a Minister for two hours far exceeds anything that happens in the Chamber during Question Time, which is really a matter of political points scoring.
One of the great ironies is that the bipartisan approach—perhaps in my position I should say tripartisan approach—that one takes in a Select Committee is made easier by the fact that it is not in the public eye or before the cameras. The public eye tends to encourage a political points-scoring atmosphere. By being out of the way, one is able to be more co-operative and tripartisan. The public do not see us behaving in that way because they only get to see us in the Chamber. I often have to tell constituents that we do constructive work in many other areas that is just not seen.
I have great sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) about the way in which members and Chairmen of Select Committees are chosen. At my first meeting of the Information


Committee, I was amused to receive a message saying, "Do not allow yourself to be elected Chairman." There were still wranglings and negotiations about the allocation of the chairmanship and who should get what. In the end, a Government Whip manfully held the position of Chairman until we sorted things out, particularly between Opposition parties. I was then elected to the Chair and I hope that it has worked out appropriately. I believe that it was for the best. That incident opened up to me the Machiavellian world of negotiations that take place behind the scenes about positions, places and Chairs.
Hon. Members have talked about Select Committee places being handed out as some sort of reward or cherry-picking exercise. I was interested to see that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is regarded as being in the premier league. In that context, the Home Affairs Committee must be somewhere in the Vauxhall Conference league. At my first meeting of the Home Affairs Committee, I remember the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) saying, quite properly, "As this is the Home Affairs Committee, I hope that we will not be gallivanting around the world because we can find out what we need to find out here." My subsequent experience has shown that he was correct. I have had some interesting trips to Newcastle and Middlesbrough to look at young offenders, but I have not set foot outside the shores of this country on behalf of that Committee.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne talked about the publication of information. I can testify to his assiduousness in that, having seen him advancing his point of view in the all-party internet group. I suspect that anoraks' corner, which meets in certain quarters of the Palace to discuss arcane matters of internet usage, is not his natural territory. From the Information Committee's point of view, I can see no technical bar to the publication of the information if it can be put on in the correct format. If Hansard, which is a tremendous resource, can be produced the next day, there is no reason why Select Committee testimony could not be put out in a similar way. I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's comment about the fact that after three or four weeks, the testimony may no longer be relevant. It is nonsensical for the newspapers and television to be able to broadcast and print the information immediately while we have no authorised version of the uncorrected testimony. It diminishes the impact of those sessions and devalues them tremendously.
In terms of the evolution of Committees, I would be keen to look at how the Select Committees and Standing Committees could be brought together. It is ironic that members of Select Committees often cannot sit on Standing Committees because of a conflict of time when they are the people who have developed expertise. As a new Member, I learned more about home affairs, which is relevant to my work, than ever before during my time on that Committee and it would have been useful to be able to apply that knowledge. Having tried to sit on a Standing Committee and a Select Committee at the same time, I found that the two were incompatible.
In other countries, there are much closer links between Select Committees and Standing Committees, and they are able to hold special committees where Select Committee members do the evidence taking in respect of a particular Bill. I should like to see us evolve far more in that direction and perhaps look at some other models so that the expertise of Select Committee members is applied

directly to Government legislation. It may be that the bipartisan atmosphere could also be applied to legislation. That is not always the case in a Standing Committee where Government Back Benchers are encouraged to keep quiet rather than to participate, whoever is in government. That would not happen in a Select Committee. The Government Back Benchers on a Select Committee would get a much better crack at the legislation than they do under the current Standing Committee procedures.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock on initiating the debate and I look forward to hearing the other contributions.

Mr. Derek Foster: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). He has learnt a great deal in a short time, and we look forward to hearing his contributions as he grows in experience and maturity—I hope that he does not mind me saying that. By contrast, I have been here for almost 20 years, 18 of which I spent on the Front Bench. I was a member of the shadow Cabinet from 1985, I was a member of the national executive committee of the Labour party and, as Chief Whip, I was one of the four officers of the parliamentary Labour party. I have been at the centre of my party' s affairs for a substantial time.
I was one of those Machiavellian creatures who fixed all the appointments. As I came towards the end of my career, I saw the light and began to think that perhaps the Whips should not be involved in those appointments. Fortunately, I did not see the light sufficiently quickly to do anything about it. However, it is right to say that it would be better if the Whips were not involved. I can say that now that I have no responsibility. It would be very much more difficult to take that view as Chief Whip. That point is worth listening to and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has raised this subject.
I had my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock with me in the Whips Office for only one year. He was absolutely outstanding. That man is a Chief Whip's nightmare and the only way to deal with him is to put him in the Whips Office. He was fine when he was with me, but he decided that he wanted to leave.

Mr. David Davis: He went native.

Mr. Foster: Yes. All the best people in this place are a Chief Whip's nightmare. They are the really valuable people, not those on the Front Bench. We can get Front Benchers ten a penny—I hope that they do not mind me saying so. In fact, a tenth of a penny is all that some of them are worth. The awkward squad are the really valuable people in this place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) gave me untold trouble. At one time, he was intending to get himself thrown out of the Chamber every Tuesday and Thursday at Prime Minister's Question Time. I had him in my office every Tuesday and Thursday and, fortunately, I managed to dissuade him from using that nuclear weapon that he was intending to let off. When I failed to persuade him on one occasion, I had to send him to then leader of the Labour party, Neil Kinnock, who is now a European Commissioner, and he succeeded in persuading him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow felt passionately that what was going on was wrong and that he was not able to draw attention to the truth. He believed that there was no parliamentary device that allowed him to do so. Of course, being my hon. Friend, he had notified the press that he was to be thrown out of the Chamber, so the press were anticipating that. He was going to hold a press conference and reveal all. However, it never quite happened. It was all to do with the Falklands war, of course, and the sinking of the Belgrano.
I remember on one occasion saying to my hon. Friend, "I want you in the Chamber, Tam." Some very important debate was going on. I said, "You of all people would not miss the sinking of your Belgrano." I think that it was the day when we forced a motion of no confidence and when Mrs. Thatcher resigned. My hon. Friend wanted to be away somewhere. I said, "No, Tam, everyone must be here on this day and you must be there to sink your Belgrano." Of course, we did not sink her. She—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman because the House is enjoying his remarks, but I have not yet identified the thread that leads to Select Committee reform.

Mr. Foster: If there was not a thread, I will try to invent one now. The thread is that this place is supremely important. It is more important than Governments. We have all fought in this place to establish our freedoms and to bring Governments under control. No Government likes to be brought under control. The only way in which we can do so is to have the courage and confidence to tell the truth to one another. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the Labour Benches think that one crawls one's way into office. The best people kick their way into office. They then become very substantial figures in their own right.
I remember one thing that I said in my first speech after I left the Government, after only 36 hours. It was a period of great emotion for me. I said that this place must never be the Prime Minister's poodle. Unfortunately, it has become so. The only people who can reclaim it are my colleagues on the Labour Back Benches. They ought to have the courage to take on the Government, to tell the truth, and to say to Ministers, "You are wrong. All right, I may not get a job, but so what? There is an alternative career as a Back Bencher or a Chairman of a Select Committee. You are wrong and we are going to bring you to account." They should have the courage to say that whether it is to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister or whoever within the Government.
The Prime Minister, we recall, is the primus inter pares. He is not a president. In other words, I am as good as the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock is as good as the Prime Minister. Our colleagues on the Opposition Benches are as good as the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is the primus inter pares and Parliament operates only when we make that work. Sadly, we ourselves have presided over the demise of Parliament. We ought not to blame the press or the Government. We ought to blame ourselves and we ought to say from this moment forward, "Let us reclaim the territory that we have lost and bring Governments to account because that is our constitutional right and duty. We cannot represent the people by any other means."

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster). I shall be brief because I know that the Front-Bench spokesmen want to wind up in about four or five minutes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on initiating this debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) has said, it comes at an appropriate time because the Modernisation Committee is considering these matters and how Parliament can best use its time, and the Procedure Committee, which I chair, is similarly engaged in considering how the House, through its procedures, can most effectively operate.
I am sorry that in 1992, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland did not hold the views that he holds today. Perhaps if he had, I would have remained the Chairman of the Health Select Committee—a job that I very much enjoyed and which I hope that I did effectively on behalf of the House. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the Select Committees do not operate on behalf of the Labour party, new or old, the Conservative and Unionist party or the Liberal Democrat party. They operate on behalf of the House of Commons. I know that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) shares my view that the Select Committee system is the only effective way in which the House of Commons can hold the Government of the day to account not only in respect of spending money, but in respect of policy. Therefore, the reform of the system to give the Select Committees more power and authority is absolutely right.
Similarly, it is right, proper and important that the Select Committees should have the resources in terms of staff and specialist advice to enable them to do their job properly. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden said, the work of the Government in relation to the European Union is massive. So it is important that the Select Committees should have the staff, expertise and technical support to enable them to do on behalf of the House what is necessary to hold the Executive to account.
The changes that were made by Norman St. John Stevas, now Lord St. John of Fawsley, in 1979–80 were absolutely right. While there was reservation in the House at the time about those reforms, they have proved extremely important for the House and have enabled Back-Bench Members of Parliament to hold whichever Government are in power to account in a more effective way.
I share the views of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and of the hon. Member for Thurrock. The hon. Member for Thurrock has proved himself to be a thoroughly effective, efficient, successful and outstanding Back-Bench Member of Parliament. He has done the job that those who elected him as Member of Parliament for Thurrock intended him to do. He is held in high regard, although he has not had what I would call a lasting Front-Bench appointment. There needs to be in this place an alternative career. Back Benchers can have those alternative careers. They do not have to become Ministers to be effective Members of Parliament. They can become effective Members of the House by becoming specialists, and members and Chairmen of Select Committees. Perhaps in future those roles will be rewarded in a more effective and meaningful way than they are today.


They are very important. Parliament could not operate without effective Back-Bench Members of Parliament. If it did, we would have a dictatorship.
The hon. Member for Thurrock has done a great service to the House by initiating the debate today. I wish him success and hope that he and I can continue to play, from our different positions in the House, an effective role on behalf of the House of Commons in holding the Government of the day, whether of my party or his, to account. Without our doing that, Parliament would be a mockery.

Sir Patrick Cormack: We have had a most outstanding debate in the past hour and nine minutes. I shall do my best not to lower the tone. It is good to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). For more than a quarter of a century, we were Back Benchers. I think that I can say without sounding conceited or boastful that neither of us was ever afraid to try to hold the Government to account. I always took the line that I was never prepared to accept the constraints of office in order to achieve office, and it is a pity that more hon. Members do not take that line.
We have heard some outstanding speeches this morning, and we are all grateful to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who is an exemplary Back-Bench Member, for introducing the debate in the way that he did. He was both provocative and thoughtful in the best tradition of parliamentary democracy. We also heard an unforgettable speech from the former Mr. Fix-it, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster). As I listened to him, I could not help but think that there is more joy in the House of Commons over one Whip that repenteth—it really was a tour de force. In that brief speech, he encapsulated what the debate is about and what the House should be about.
When the Opposition initiated a debate on 7 July, in the midst of the Sierra Leone episode, we did not debate that matter specifically, but discussed the position and rights of Select Committees, and the hon. Member for Thurrock made a distinguished speech. When I wound up that debate, I quoted, to the hilarity of some Labour Members, Colonel Dunning's famous motion of 1780, which said that the power of the Crown had increased, was increasing and should be diminished. Today, the power of the Executive has increased, is increasing and needs to be diminished, especially in a Parliament where the Government have a steamroller majority and can get their way, regardless of the sense of the argument, or the equity or justice of the cause.
In such a Parliament, it is crucial that the Prime Minister and—I hope, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, whom we welcome today—will respond to the debate in like spirit. It is essential that the Prime Minister tries to emulate Gladstone, who set up the Public Accounts Committee, two of whose distinguished Chairmen we have heard from today. Gladstone was a man of immense power, great prestige and stature, who knew that those qualities could only be added to, and not detracted from, by allowing the Chamber to have a proper say in calling Government to account. I hope that it was in that spirit—indeed, I believe that it was so—that the departmental Select Committees were set up almost 20 years ago. We must all recognise that Ministers are answerable to Parliament and that Parliament is not answerable to Ministers.
We must recognise that more of our influence and authority has inevitably passed, in this television age, to those smaller Rooms where Select Committees meet, where arguments can be examined on their merits—as many hon. Members have pointed out—and the narrow partisanship that is sometimes so evident in the Chamber can be put to one side. Select Committees have an especially crucial role to play for the House. They are not the creature of Government, but are answerable to this House; they are appointed by this House. How glad I was to hear repentance from the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, who said that the manner of appointment of Select Committees was perhaps not correct. How right it is that we should try to ensure that Select Committee chairmanships are not merely regarded as a reward for someone who has missed out on being a Minister, or has been sacked from a ministerial post. It is important that people are selected for their merits.
The hon. Member for Thurrock rightly made the point—which was echoed by other right hon. and hon. Members—that there should be an alternative career ladder in this place. No greater honour can befall any man or woman of this country than to be elected to this House, and it grieves me that Parliament is so sniped at and denigrated by the fourth estate, which sometimes seems hellbent on destroying the other three. When a man or woman is elected to this House with aspirations to office, those aspirations are more properly fixed on the chairmanship of a Select Committee and on serving the House than on anything else. I do not advocate the separation of powers that exists in the United States and other countries, but Congress provides for the aspiring American public servant an opportunity that is not as readily appreciated in this country as it should be.
I totally agree with those who have argued—as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) in a notable speech—for extra resources for Select Committees. It is nonsense that the Chairman of a Select Committee who is going to an important event should have to wait in a taxi queue, but it is far greater nonsense that the resources to match the resources of Ministries are not available, in some degree, to the Chairmen and members of Select Committees. There should be greater devotion of resources to those Committees.
It is also right that we should debate the findings of Select Committees on the Floor of the House. I was so glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden and others talked about the Chamber in the way that they did. It is a great pity that people will not have the chance to read about this debate in the press tomorrow. The way in which Parliament is being sidelined, not only by the Government, but by the media, is scandalous. People's faith in this place would be reinforced somewhat if they had the opportunity to know about the quality and content of debates such as this one.
I believe that, unless we can put this place back as the forum and cockpit of the nation, we shall fail in our duty as parliamentarians. Although I accept that it is entirely right and proper that the Modernisation Committee should consider such innovative ideas as the Main Committee, I remain unconvinced about that issue. However, whether or not that Committee comes into existence, it cannot, must not and should never replace the Chamber.


Life would be brought back to the Chamber if we had more debates about the findings of our Select Committee colleagues.
In that context, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden made the extremely good suggestion that, perhaps on a Monday, a half hour or an hour should be set aside for such debates. There is no reason why that should not be done. The parliamentary managers should be able to find that time, and if that means that we sit until 11 o'clock on Monday evenings—so what? Let us have a regular slot when Select Committee findings can be presented to the House, because those Committees and their Chairmen are answerable to the House, and Ministers are then answerable, before the House, to the Select Committees.
I do not make these points to the Parliamentary Secretary in a partisan spirit; I should make precisely the same points from the Government Back Benches, as many hon. Members will be aware. We need a system that more properly and adequately holds Ministers to account. Parliament has two prime functions: one is to scrutinise legislation minutely and properly, but the other—which is more important, because it goes beyond legislation—is to make Ministers properly answerable to Parliament. They should be able to defend their every action and, of course, their estimates.
I end on that point, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Thurrock and by others, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden: Select Committees should have a greater say in the expenditure of the public's money. It is not the Government's money; it is the taxpayer's money, and to say that only those who are in government should have total control over expenditure and priorities is wrong. If we could do something to change matters along the lines that have been suggested, it would be a complete vindication of the excellent service that the hon. Member for Thurrock has performed today by initiating the debate.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I listened with a great deal of interest, and sometimes amusement, to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) made. He described himself as cussed and difficult, and took the opportunity to "bounce ideas" around the Chamber. He can tell his friend and ministerial colleague whom he did not identify that, although he may not have had the opportunity to enjoy trips abroad with the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, he certainly enjoyed himself today. The entire Chamber enjoyed his speech.
Many points were made during the debate and I shall try to answer some of them. I shall reflect on the others, but, as the House knows, the issue concerns the House as well as the Government. I expect those hon. Members with more experience than I, who have powerful voices and positions, to continue this debate elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster. Many themes emerged and I shall discuss three of those before coming to the specific points.
First, strong support was expressed on both sides of the Chamber for the Select Committee system. Everyone believes that it has a strong foundation and no one advocated major change. Hon. Members want to improve

the system and many suggestions were made about how to go about that. The system is not static—it has changed and it will continue to change. The mood of the House today reflects a desire to see quicker change. Let me reflect on two or three changes.
Within this Parliament, the Select Committee structure has been changed slightly to mirror the new departmental structures. An Environmental Audit Committee has been set up and, importantly, a new Human Rights Committee will soon be set up to monitor new legislation. The big change, which no one has mentioned in great depth this morning, is the move to encourage and enable Select Committees to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny. Someone said that the Social Security Committee had looked at the pensions splitting on divorce Bill. There will shortly be opportunities for Select Committees to examine, for example, the new food standards agency. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) knows, a Committee will also have opportunities to look at asylum and immigration procedures, and I hope that he will be involved. Inevitably, that pre-legislative scrutiny will lead to changes in Select Committee structure.
Secondly, I was slightly amused at the discussion about the need for bipartisanship. The House is very much into pantomime and yah-boo politics. I thought that I heard an increasing echo of people saying that they wanted a new consensual approach to politics—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] When hon. Members are challenged with that, their voices change, but I had the impression that hon. Members were saying that bipartisanship should be encouraged.
Thirdly and most importantly, hon. Members were conscious of the importance of creative tension between Back Benchers and the Select Committee system, and the Government. We can all benefit from that creative tension. There is nothing to be frightened about. I hope that the call for greater openness expressed in the Chamber this morning will be heard. Greater openness is one of the Government's aims.
A number of specific points have been made and I shall deal with two or three of them. A strong call was made for greater status for Select Committee reports, members and Chairmen. Like many other hon. Members, I listen regularly to the "Today" programme and I have reached the conclusion that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee is in residence there. He is there almost every day because he pursues the Select Committee's line. His status arises from the Select Committee's achievements. We need to back Select Committees and ensure that their status arises from their achievements.
Extra resources for Select Committees were called for. Ultimately, that is a matter for the House of Commons Commission, with which some hon. Members present today are involved, but extra resources have been made available in the past. I understand that resources are available, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said, there is never a difficulty in getting specialist advisers because it is regarded as an honour to work for a Select Committee. However, there may be a case for looking again at the issue of special assistants who advise Select Committees.
I want to spend a few minutes discussing the points made by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), and his predecessor about expenditure. In a sense, my right hon. Friend the Member for


Ashton-under-Lyne partly wound up the debate. He stressed that, with imagination, Select Committees could do many things and that in many ways they were not constrained. I hope that Select Committees will take a longer look at expenditure. I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden that much more needs to be done to make the Executive accountable for their expenditure. Resource accounting will help, as will a measurement of output and a focus on input. However, I see no reason why Select Committees should not be able to call Ministers before them and examine the issues that he discussed.
I am conscious that I have very little time in which to respond, so I shall discuss just two other issues. The first is the need to ensure that evidence is available quickly, not just to hon. Members, but to the wider public. There is a case for quicker production of reports and, in extreme cases, evidence can be made available quickly. Furthermore, when Select Committees are recorded and videoed, a tape can be produced immediately. However, the use of new technology should be explored to ensure that evidence is available quickly.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock mentioned witnesses giving evidence on oath. We must bear it in mind that appearing before a Select Committee is difficult. Ministers are grilled, but people from the outside are grilled too and we must be careful how we handle those people.
I am conscious that I have made no specific pledges, but I hope that the tone of my remarks is sympathetic. I shall ensure that hon. Members' comments are made available to a wider audience. Change has occurred and will occur, and I hope that we shall establish a system in which the whole House feels that Select Committee views are heard.

Post Office

Mr. Richard Page: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the subject of the Post Office. I have regularly submitted my name in the ballot for the past three months on this item, so I am obviously very pleased to have secured a place in today's Adjournment debates. It is particularly apposite because the Select Committee on Trade and Industry reported on Monday and, this week, the Post Office has made an important overseas purchase, on which I shall touch later.
The Post Office is an important and massive business. We must remind ourselves time and again that, through its four main operations—the Royal Mail, Parcelforce, Post Office Counters Ltd. and Subscription Services Ltd.—it employs 190,000 people and has a turnover in excess of £6.7 billion. It is facing increasing, serious competition from overseas rivals, as well as pressures from the growth of fax and electronic mail services. There is also the prospect of greater liberalisation through the European Union.
To me and several others, it has been clear for some time that such a situation could not be maintained indefinitely without losing market share—notwithstanding the announcement by the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), just before Christmas. A publicly owned and financed business that is subject to all the traditional constraints on pay, pricing, acquisitions, borrowing, partnerships and joint ventures has become increasingly at odds with the commercial world.
As the previous Secretary of State announced just before Christmas, postal administrations in countries such as Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland are already benefiting from much greater commercial freedom. The Dutch postal business, KPN, has bought the private sector carrier TNT, which operates in this country and throughout the world, for the massive sum of 2 billion Australian dollars. Such sums will be necessary if we are to create a world player in our Post Office. The German post office has bought a 20 per cent. share in DHL, for which it also paid a substantial sum.
In both the Netherlands and Germany, and in France, the machinery and rules of the European Union are being used to strengthen their postal organisations before they are fully or partially privatised. It is certain that, when the European Union directive on postal markets starts to work fully, direct mail and cross-border services will be open to more direct competition. Unless we are very careful, our rivals will be better placed to utilise and take advantage of it.
It is with regret that I say that the previous Government did not reach a final conclusion on these challenges. I felt at times that they should have gone much further, although I plead in mitigation the obvious lack of a substantial parliamentary majority. This Government cannot plead that. The decisions announced in the House by the former Secretary of State on 7 December 1998 show that the Government are fundamentally divided on the way in which to proceed. Signs of a major quarrel between the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry were all over his statement. The
radical new form of public sector enterprise"—[Official Report, 7 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 22.]—


that he announced, in which a minority shareholding in a prospective public limited company can be sold, and which allows for an exchange of equity with other businesses, is a slogan, not a solution. As the Communications Workers Union pointed out in September,
a minority share sale would amount to privatisation for all practical purposes".
It would have been far better to acknowledge that outright last month and to follow the union's logic, instead of cobbling together yet another policy fudge.
I understand why the former Secretary of State could not do so. With the Chancellor to his left, the former Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), to his right and Charlie Whelan ahead of him, it would have been the political equivalent of the charge of the Light Brigade. But the political landscape has changed; the Government have suffered a few casualties, and the new Secretary of State has only the wounded figure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tackle.
If rumour is right, the new Secretary of State is looking over this terrain again before the publication of the forthcoming White Paper. That is one of the reasons why I was so pleased to be able to secure today's debate. I hope that the White Paper will address the questions raised in the Select Committee report on the degree of control that the DTI will have over Post Office borrowing and the scale envisaged.
All that is second best to my principal hope that the new Secretary of State, unlike his predecessor, will have the courage to accept that the only way in which our Post Office will compete effectively with its European and global rivals is to set it free—just as the previous Government had the courage to set free British Telecom—to transform itself from a national player to a major contender on the world stage, just as BT has done.
I shall give a few simple examples of the problems facing our Post Office and what the Government's policies will entail if they remain unchanged. On Monday, the Post Office purchased the German Parcel Company, the third largest carrier in the Federal Republic, which has annual sales of £250 million. We do not know what the Post Office paid for it—it wants the matter to remain commercially confidential—although estimates in the press range from £200 million to £300 million.
Even with the reduction of the Government's dividend from Post Office profits from an average of 80 per cent. in recent years to 40 per cent., which I welcome, such a transaction will inevitably affect the Post Office's capacity to invest in its automation and development programme—unless, of course, the money comes directly from the Treasury. We do not know whether that will be so. If such sums come directly from the Treasury, we must ask about accountability. We might ask what other sums are earmarked for future purchases. To operate in such a way is a recipe for confusion. Let us not forget that the purchase, which I welcome and on which I congratulate the Post Office, is only the start of creating a world-class, worldwide postal business. Entrées into the Spins, Italys and Frances of this world must be found and funded. That is when we shall start to talk about serious sums of money.
I remember being in the House when, before BT was privatised, it announced that it wanted £2 billion for an investment programme. We ran around in circles trying to facilitate that within Treasury rules. There was talk of Busby bonds, and all sorts of alternatives were examined. At the end of the day, the only way that BT could get its money for expansion was through privatisation.
Private companies operating within national borders will be purchased at an increasing premium as major players strive for world positions. To put it bluntly, it will get harder and harder for the Post Office to make further acquisitions under the rules of external financing that were announced in December. Internally, Post Office revenues will fall by several millions of pounds when the adjustment to the Rheims agreement is made. I shall not go into the details of the Rheims agreement suffice it to say that it is an arcane form of internal and exterior movements of mail. It boils down to—the figure is from two years ago—the enhancement of the Royal Mail's profits by £40 million. Following the adjustment, we shall lose that amount, and probably more. All that will restrict the Post Office's ability to expand.
Anyone discussing the commercial freedom or privatisation of the Post Office is told that such moves would put daily deliveries at risk throughout the country, that it would affect the universal price for letters and that the network of rural post offices would face extinction. I do not believe that. We heard exactly the same alarmist scare stories from the same sources when BT was privatised. Were we not told that prices would soar, and that country telephone boxes would go? What do we have now? We have more telephone boxes, new operators and competing services—which benefit the public, as consumers, more than ever before—along with much lower prices.
I believe that greater freedom—indeed, privatisation, with the spur of competition from other providers—will bring comparable gains to our Post Office. At the same time—and this is the underlying raison d'etre of all that I am saying—it will bring about the creation of our Post Office as a world player. I think that, if the right measures are adopted, that can be achieved alongside the maintenance of a nationwide postal service. I am not here to outline Conservative party policy, but I am sure that Conservative Members are as committed as anyone to a universal service and to sustaining a viable network of rural post offices, whatever method of privatisation may be employed.
Inevitably, there will be changes in the location and number of post offices. Although 28 million people use rural post offices every week, the number in operation has fallen from 20,000 to 18,000 in the past few years. It is a brutal commercial fact of life that a minimum amount of business must be done in a post office if it is to be viable, and that minimum rises every year. New policies must be devised if the sub-post office is to give its postmaster or postmistress a decent living, and also provide the local community with a wide range of services. I know that the aim of the sub-post office movement is the creation of a bank in every village, and I want that as well.
I would be more confident about the Government's assurances to sub-post office operators last month had they not so far failed to commit themselves to the Horizon platform for automation. Perhaps the Minister will announce such a commitment today; if he does, I shall be delighted. If he says that the last Government made no


such commitment, I shall roll over and say that I entirely agree. The fact is, however, that no one wants a future of indefinitely diminishing returns and ever-lengthening hours for the operators of sub-post offices, but, unless changes are made, that is a real danger.
The prospect of a Post Office obliged to submit its strategic plans to the Department of Trade and Industry, subject to Treasury approval for its borrowing to finance new investment and operating without "undue cross-subsidy"—whatever that delicate phrase means—between Royal Mail and Parcelforce, with employees paid within the necessary context of public-sector pay policies, is frankly disappointing. It constitutes a return to the way in which the state-owned organisation was run in the past, and from that it will be only a short step to the lunchtime directive. It represents a false and not a new dawn. Realistically, can any hon. Member envisage the Treasury giving our Post Office enough money to purchase an organisation such as TNT? A purchase of that kind, however, is necessary if the Post Office is to move into the world market.
I see nothing wrong with an open and transparent accounting system, or an independent regulatory system to ensure standards of service and fair competition, and I know that that is what the private operators in the sector want. Without change, we shall have a Post Office with its hands tied behind its back, exposed to increasing competition, particularly from European postal organisations. I realise that the Minister cannot pre-empt the White Paper which I hope will soon be before us, but I hope he accepts that what I suggest would benefit the Post Office in the long term, and that the status quo is not a long-term option.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) on securing the debate, and am happy to respond. If I did not remember the hon. Gentleman's record as a Minister responsible for the Post Office, I would not disagree with much that he said; but he has a record of failure as long as his arm. I would not have mentioned that if the hon. Gentleman had not been rather churlish in his speech about the steps taken by the Government so far—first to deal with the shambles that the hon. Gentleman left us, and secondly to introduce measures for the future of the Post Office in a sophisticated way, involving all the stakeholders who use it daily as ordinary customers or as business customers for whom it is a major distributor.
The reforms announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) on 7 December 1998 broke the deadlock with which the last Government left us. They give us a real opportunity to provide the Post Office with commercial freedoms. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire was, in fact, responsible for the Post Office on two occasions: one would have been bad enough, but he returned for a second bite at the cherry. He claims that he was always in favour of reform, but he never achieved it. His party enjoyed a majority in the House for 18 years, and, owing to an intellectual straitjacket, the only show in town was the privatisation of the Post Office. The Conservatives allowed it to float away in the ether, which damaged management, personal relationships and the Post Office's economic future, and

offered a prospect that was wholeheartedly rejected time and again by the British people, and by management and workers in the Post Office.
The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire is known in the Department of Trade and Industry as "Swag-bag Page". As a Minister, he was responsible for the second biggest hike in the external financing limit ever imposed by the Government. He took 91 per cent. of post-tax profits in 1995–96, and came back for a second bite in 1996–97. That money—91p in every pound—was money that the Post Office needed to invest in new opportunities, here and throughout Europe. It was hamstrung by a Minister who handed the money over to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who squandered it rather than investing it in postal and telecommunications services.
There was chaos. Industrial relations were in turmoil, with 810,900 days lost through industrial relations in the second year during which the hon. Gentleman was a Minister. It has taken the present Government to resolve the position, securing a 1,800 per cent. reduction in the number of days lost through industrial action.
Not one joint venture was established with the Post Office on either occasion when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister. Since I have been the Minister responsible, I have established a number of joint ventures. The Post Office has acquired a stake in a Swedish mail delivery company, linked up with a Dutch letters and parcels delivery company, established a joint venture for the catering arm and, in conjunction with Microsoft, launched a service enabling customers to receive paper mail sent electronically. Since day one of their inheritance, the Government have sought proactively to establish a new framework for the Post Office, and new opportunities for it to compete here and abroad.
I am grateful to the Trade and Industry Select Committee for the timely publication on Monday of its report following an evidence session on 9 December. The memorandum summarising the main points that the Committee expects to see in the White Paper is helpful in itself. I hope that I can be as successful in meeting the Committee's expectations as we were in fulfilling the recommendations of the report that it published this time last year.
The Post Office is a great national institution, on which we all rely. It delivers post to every address in the United Kingdom each working day, handles more than 70 million letters per day, is beaten only by Coca-Cola as the most strongly recognised brand image, and has more than 19,000 post offices in the UK. Almost 60 per cent. of villages have a post office; only 5 per cent. have a bank. The Post Office is visited 28 million times a week on average—half the UK population. No wonder the Tories wanted to privatise such a special asset, owned by the British people.
We want the Post Office to remain one of the great success stories of the UK, contributing to the commercial success of other businesses, providing the modern communications infrastructure that we need commercially and socially, and contributing to the social cohesion of our nation. I trust that Conservative Members share that desire. Indeed, the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire went out of his way to say that that was the case. It is just that his policies in government failed to meet those challenges. It has been up to this Government


to meet them effectively. We are keen to put in place as quickly as possible the reform package that was announced last month.
I want to put in place three main pillars of the reform package by the middle of the year at the latest. First, we shall publish a White Paper putting flesh on the bones of the announcement on 7 December by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire is right; I will not pre-empt that in the debate.
The White Paper will redefine the relationship between the Government and the Post Office, as well as explain our plans for implementing the comprehensive reform package. I look forward to positive contributions in response to the White Paper by anyone and everyone who is interested in providing genuine commercial freedoms to the Post Office.
Secondly, we will implement the European Union postal services directive. We will introduce regulations under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, enabling us to ensure early implementation of significant parts of the reform package, especially the establishment of an independent regulator. Thirdly, we will agree with the Post Office the strategic plan, which will form an essential part of the new arm's-length relationship between the Government and the Post Office Board.
The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire raised the issue of the Horizon automation project. The Government are committed totally to the project. The deep-seated problems over the project—I do not mean the comment in a personal way—were inherited from the previous Administration, who failed to deal adequately with the introduction of such a complex programme.
We are absolutely committed to providing a modern, secure, convenient and cost-effective means of paying benefits to customers. That is what the benefit payment card has been designed to do, and it remains our objective. However, we have been concerned at the substantial delays that have been suffered by the Horizon project, mainly due to the previous Administration. We continue actively to monitor its progress.
The Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters Ltd. continue to work closely with the supplier, ICL Pathway, to resolve the problems. The Government remain committed to a nationwide network of post offices and to ensuring those benefit customers who wish to do so can continue to draw their benefits in cash at post offices.
The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire also talked about German Parcel. I will try to be as helpful as I can in relation to that. We can all be proud about that achievement. Within weeks of the Government giving greater commercial freedoms to the Post Office, it was able to acquire German Parcel. That signals a big step forward in achieving the Post Office's strategic objective to become one of the top global distribution companies.
As the hon. Gentleman said, German Parcel is the third largest private carrier in Germany and a major shareholder in General Parcel, an international company which operates throughout 30 European countries. Therefore, it is important that that exciting new venture is a success for the Post Office. It provides an early demonstration that,

with the new freedoms of the reform package that we have announced, our Post Office can respond much more effectively to the opportunities of a changing and dynamic international marketplace to provide wider and better services to meet the growing demands and needs of its customer base.
Many other European post offices have already invested in substantial acquisitions and strategic alliances, so the Post Office is coming from a long way back. Therefore, we have to respond in a way that ensures that, in that dynamic marketplace, the Post Office can secure with some certainty acquisitions in which it has an interest.
The Post Office has shown that it can do that by that particular acquisition. That will become ever more vital as the postal market becomes increasingly globalised and competitive. That significant international acquisition shows the commitment of both the Government and the new Post Office Board to move quickly to implement the agreed reforms, and gives the lie to those who questioned the Government's commitment to their new policy for a public sector organisation.
I know that the Post Office has faced calls to disclose how much it is paying for German Parcel; the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire alluded to that in a reasonable way. Of course, the public, as owners, should be aware of Post Office investments and financial commitments and the Government should be as transparent as possible in their dealings, but not in ways that might unduly damage the Post Office's prospects for commercial success. No owner would want that.
As I said, I hope that I can be helpful. The estimated turnover of German Parcel for the current year is around £265 million. A normal core price for such an acquisition might be the annual turnover plus any special assets, so that should give a good idea of the figure in question, but I stress that other publicly and privately owned European post offices are making acquisitions and, in most instances, we do not know how much they are paying. They do not say; nor do they intend to say.
For commercial reasons, our Post Office would dearly like to know what the costs of those other acquisitions are, so we are not going to hand on a plate to Deutsche Post or other serious competitors the figure paid for German Parcel; nor do I think that the hon. Gentleman would wish us to do so.
The figures in question will properly be reflected in both published Government and Post Office accounts, and any adjustments to the Post Office external financing limits will be announced in the normal way, but such publication will not necessarily reveal the details of any particular commercially confidential deal. The Post Office investment in German Parcel will stand on its own two feet and we fully expect it to pay for itself.
I return to the reforms. The package is radical. It presents the best way forward. Reviews under the previous Government failed to give the Post Office greater freedoms or disciplines. Instead, they left it in limbo and, as a result, starved it of investment. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman played a major part in that starving of investment. Our review gives the Post Office the commercial freedom that it needs.
Pursuing wholesale privatisation, as set out by the hon. Gentleman, was not an option; nor is it an option. It could have put large parts of the network under threat.


Because of the need for primary legislation, it would have created a long period of uncertainty, which would have seen the Post Office's market further undermined at home and abroad.
The reform package has several essential elements. One is the new arm's-length relationship. The Government's role in the Post Office will be restricted to the strategic level, both on matters of commercial direction and on setting social objectives. The Post Office Board will become clearly accountable for its success or failure in running the business. We will require the Post Office to present a rolling five-year strategic plan each year for approval by Government. That is essential to protect taxpayers' interests.
Another is the new regulatory regime, which, as I have said, will be substantially set out in the White Paper. In setting that out, we will clearly show the direction the Government will want taken in terms of greater resources for investment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool has already set out moves on the external financing limits. We decided to change those for the Post Office for next year—1999–2000—to £207 million from the provisional figure of £335 million. That will be about 50 per cent. of post-tax profits, down from die 91 per cent. that was introduced by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire. In subsequent years, it will fall to 40 per cent. of post-tax profits. That will give great incentive to the Post Office to be even more successful than it has been already under the present Administration.

Visitors' Visas

1 pm

Mr. Keith Vaz: I welcome this debate on visitors' visas. I have wanted to initiate such a debate for the past 12 years, and am happy that I can do so today.
I shall raise issues primarily, if not exclusively, of procedure, not of policy. I realise that two Departments have responsibility for the matter—the Home Office, which sets policy, and the Foreign Office, which administers the procedure on behalf of the Home Office. I support the Government's immigration policy, which is designed to ensure firmness and fairness in immigration.
I am delighted to note that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is to reply to the debate because he is one of the Government's most outstanding members, and has knowledge of the issues that I shall raise. He has dealt with immigration cases because, like me and other hon. Members, he has many members of the Asian community in his constituency. I shall concentrate on the Indian sub-continent, and specifically on how visas are issued to visitors from it.
I welcome the Government's commitment to the re-establishment of a right of appeal. I spoke to the Home Office today, and am aware that it will take some time before the Bill dealing with the matter is published. I am aware also that it will take some time for it to be enacted. Meanwhile, thousands of my constituents, and thousands of people in other constituencies, are directly affected by the way in which the procedure is operated.
I should make it clear also that we are talking not about settlement but simply about people who wish to come to the United Kingdom to visit relatives. They may wish to be here to attend weddings or funerals, or to visit as tourists, but they do not want to settle here. The debate is therefore quite different from a debate or discussion on asylum or on any other aspect of immigration policy. The people about whom I am speaking want to come here to visit relatives. When their holiday is finished, they wish to return to the sub-continent.
It is worth reminding the House of the size of the Asian community in the United Kingdom. According to the population census, there are currently in the United Kingdom 937,000 people of Indian origin, 552,500 people of Pakistani origin, 203,000 people of Bangladeshi origin, 177,000 people of Chinese origin, and 216,000 people classified as "other Asian". The total United Kingdom population of Asian origin is about 2.85 million, which is a very large number of people. They are concentrated in our major conurbations, such as Leicester, Slough, Tower Hamlets and Birmingham.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): And Leeds.

Mr. Vaz: Indeed; I thank the Minister for reminding me of that.
Members of the Asian community wish—we all have wishes—to ensure that they can see their relatives, that their relatives are able to be granted a visa relatively quickly and that their relatives are treated well while being interviewed.
I have worked out that the Asian population in 32 parliamentary constituencies exceeds 10 per cent. of the electorate. Therefore, many constituencies are affected by the issue. The effect on our constituents of decisions made by entry clearance officers in places such as Bombay, New Delhi and elsewhere on the sub-continent is profound. Each week, at my surgery in Leicester—other hon. Members on both sides of the House will share the experience—constituent after constituent complains about the visa system. They are distressed, anxious and bewildered by the system. Sometimes they do not have the necessary information. They come to surgeries with a refusal notice that is very blunt and not particularly detailed, and expect their Member of Parliament to be able to wave a magic wand to ensure that their relatives are able to come into the United Kingdom.
I believe that the job of hon. Members is to stand in the shoes of their constituents, to accept what they say and to take that information and send it on to the entry clearance officer. We can then hope that the entry clearance officer will be able to review the case and—of course, to satisfy our constituent—grant a visa. Hon. Members therefore speak to the sponsors, unlike entry clearance officers, in countries on the sub-continent, who speak to applicants. There is a general assumption that the applicant will visit the person sponsoring him or her and that there is contact between the two.
I do not think that I have had a single case in which I have written to the migration and visa correspondent unit and received a reply containing good news. However, I shall deal later in my speech with the way in which that unit operates.
I have already mentioned the system's effects on relatives in the United Kingdom, but I believe that its effects on people on the sub-continent are even worse. People travel long distances to Dhaka, Bombay, New Delhi or Islamabad to make applications. The application may be refused, and they have to travel back to their home. They may not know what to do about the situation and may rely on the advice of immigration advisers. They may pay money to those advisers, most of whom, I believe, may mislead them. After all that, they will still be unable to enter the United Kingdom.
Subsequently—because of the way in which the United Kingdom visa regime works, and because we are part of the European Community—all of those from the sub-continent who are refused visas to enter the United Kingdom become prisoners of the region and are unable to visit other European countries. When those countries are notified that those people have been refused entry here, it creates a presumption in the minds of those countries that perhaps there is something wrong with those people.
A file is kept on those who are refused visas and even if they apply for a visa again within a year, their case notes will be read. Although we are told that a subsequent application will be considered as fresh and that everything will be reconsidered, I know—just as the Minister and every other hon. Member knows—that the case file will be examined and that the same rejection will be issued. I do not know of one case in which someone has been accepted as a visitor on a second application.
How do hon. Members deal with such cases? We write to the migration and visa correspondence unit. To echo the words of my staff, I should like rename it "the voice mail unit", because my secretary informs me that whenever she rings the unit, she is put on voice mail. She leaves a message and the unit rings her back. I write a letter, and the unit replies. The MVCU sends a standard letter about which there is nothing magical—it acts as a placebo. My three and a half year old son, Luke, can fill in the words on such standard letters. Such is the type of reply that we receive from those working at the MVCU.
We send the letters that we receive from the MVCU to our constituents, who come back to us and say, "That letter contains exactly the same information that was in the refusal notice. There is no new information in it. What is the point of coming to you as my Member of Parliament?"
We need to overhaul the way in which the MVCU operates. It is important that hon. Members should be able to deal with people at that unit who can make decisions. Currently, it is easier for my constituents to fax Bombay, Islamabad or New Delhi, and to receive a fax reply, than it is for me to go through the absurd procedure of having to write to the MVCU, which writes to the post abroad and waits for a reply winch is then forwarded to me.
The postcard sent by the MVCU states:
Our target time for substantive reply is 15 working days. With the current volume of correspondence the actual average time for reply is 25 working days.
It is extraordinary that the unit should admit that there is such a delay.
I have many examples—only two of which I shall deal with today—of waiting ages for a reply to letters that I have written to the MVCU. It has certainly taken longer to receive a reply than 25 days. In one case, I wrote to the MVCU in early July, and again on 30 July, 10 September and 14 September. I received a reply on 23 September. In another case, I wrote on 28 September and received a reply on 3 November. There are many examples that prove that the unit's overall operation does not work.
I should like to highlight the urgent and very important cases in which people have to come to the United Kingdom because a relative is dying in hospital or because they would like to attend a wedding—for the ceremony, not when the ceremony is over. People from the sub-continent, like the rest of us, also would like to be able to visit their friends during the school holidays, not when the holidays are over.
In such urgent cases, hon. Members—who have so many similar cases and tend to react when people get terribly upset—try to get through to a Minister. To be fair to the Under-Secretary, my noble Friend Baroness Symons, she has seen me whenever I have rung, despite her enormous duties. However, I have never had a positive response from our conversations. I now realise why: she believes that the law does not permit her to exercise her discretion to grant a visa when an ECO has said no. Apparently, she has taken legal advice on that. I should be interested to know what my right hon. Friend the Minister thinks.
I recently dealt with a case that I thought very important. A 65-year-old woman called Mrs. Kerai wanted to visit her family in Britain. They had come here from east Africa, settled and had a family. The children


were 21 and 22. The family had never had the chance to go to India because they were working so hard and she had never been to Britain. They wanted to bring her over to show her how much they had achieved.
Poor Mrs. Kerai was not allowed to come here because the ECO in Bombay feared that she was going to settle here. I said that she did not want to settle here. She did not want to stay, despite all the benefits of a new Labour Government. She likes being here to participate in what we have achieved, but she wants to go back at the end of her visit. I was advised that a 65-year-old woman with no husband should apply for settlement, but I repeated that she did not want to settle here. If she withdrew her visa application and applied for settlement, the authorities would assume that she had always intended to settle and could therefore not be granted a visitor's visa.
I went to my noble Friend the Under-Secretary, who said that she would look into the matter. Weeks passed with no response. I had another word with her. More time passed. Eventually I got very irate and threatened to raise the matter in Parliament. There is nothing so effective for ensuring a quick reply. I think that I had the first question tabled for Foreign Office questions that day. I had an immediate call from her private office to tell me that the matter was being looked into and passed to the Home Office. The Home Office approved the granting of a visa within 24 hours of the matter being referred.
Procedurally, we have to deal with Foreign Office Ministers who, on the basis of legal advice, feel that they cannot intervene and exercise their discretion. The cases then go to the Home Office. I do not want Members of Parliament to be treated differently, but if we say that we have met the applicant and the sponsor and know that the applicant will go back in six months and we give all the guarantees in the world—including ensuring that the passport is handed in when the applicant arrives in the United Kingdom and handed back to the post abroad when they return so that officials know that they have come back—any democratically accountable, fair, reasonable and just system should accept that.
I went to Bombay recently on my way back from a holiday in India, where I put those points at my first meeting with Michael Bates, the deputy high commissioner, and the second secretary of immigration. Civil servants and entry clearance officers say that they do what they are asked, but they make judgments based on an interview. Many applicants have to travel many miles and it is the first time that they have had to deal with officialdom. I do not ring Bombay very often—probably only four times a year. If I ring up and say that I know a particular applicant and the sponsor, promise that they will go back and am prepared to give any undertaking that is asked of me, the applicant should be in a better position. Otherwise, we rely totally on an economic basis for immigration law, which was never the intention of immigration policy and should never be the intention of the Government. Officials rightly say that issues should be taken up with Ministers, because they make the law whereas officials only implement it.
My right hon. Friend the Minister understands the problem. It took my office 10 person hours to deal with that one case. We have hundreds of cases to deal with. We cannot know everything about all of them, but there must be accountability to Parliament, and Ministers must be able to listen to colleagues, take advice and make decisions. I do not know what happened in the case that

I mentioned—I know only that I got the visa for my constituent. We should not have to go through all that for something so simple and basic.
Until we have an appeal system, my right hon. Friend the Minister needs to consider undertakings and the operation of the MVCU. Why is there not someone at the MVCU who can make the relevant decisions? We cannot keep running to my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is incredibly busy. His portfolio covers about one third of the world. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary has to deal with every consular case. We feel guilty about disturbing them on such issues, but constituents press us to do so. Why do we not have a system that would allow a review in London? If not, let us have a computerised system. Visitors should be put on a computer so that we know where they are. Let us make the sponsors responsible. We should not have to wait for legislation, because this needs to be done now.
I pay tribute to the staff in our posts abroad, who have always been helpful to me. They have hardly ever said yes, but they are always very courteous. However, they will always do what Ministers ask.
I support the continuing campaign for the issuing of visas in the major cities of the sub-continent—places such as Ahmedabad, Chandigarh, Lucknow, Sylhet and Lahore. 1 have canvassed that with Mr. Advani, the Home Office Minister in India, the Indian Prime Minister, and our high commissioner and deputy high commissioner there. They are all favourable to the idea. If we allow visas to be issued, as the Indians and Pakistanis allow them to be issued in Leicester and Birmingham at visa surgeries, and allow our officials to go out to such places, they can verify facts and make the applications much cheaper. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will look into the matter and try to end the misery that has affected so many of our constituents over the years. I know that he has inherited the current policy, but let us try to do something about it before the law changes.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on raising the issue. His patience has been rewarded. After a 12-year wait, he has had an opportunity to bring the matter to the attention of the House. In what may sound like a moment of mutual congratulation, I pay tribute to the excellent job that he does for his constituents, raising individual cases and working hard on community issues. I congratulate him on his work and the status that he holds in the community and his constituency.
My hon. Friend has raised some policy issues and some procedural issues. He is right to say that the policy issues are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but, as he says, it is difficult to disentangle policy from procedure, because the procedure is designed to ensure that the policy is properly and fairly implemented. Our objective throughout has been to ensure the good, fair and open implementation of the immigration rules. My hon. Friend said that he was in favour of the broad policy. The issue is how it is implemented.
My hon. Friend referred to three policy points. First, he rightly pointed out one welcome change in policy since we came to office—the abolition of the primary purpose


rule. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on having had the courage and the principles to take that decision so early in the life of the Government. I have never understood how it was possible for an entry clearance officer to decide the primary purpose of a marriage. I find the process distasteful and I am glad that my constituents and many others do not have to go through it. There are other safeguards in immigration law to stop those who want to use marriage for fraudulent immigration purposes. I welcome the principled decision that was taken in the early days of this Government.
Secondly, my hon. Friend rightly said that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to introduce an appropriate appeals procedure for those who are refused visitors' visas. Again, I welcome that. That right used to exist, but was wrongly taken away by the previous Government. That has made a substantial difference to the work load of Members of Parliament, because we are no longer able to refer particular cases to the appeals procedure. We must take them up through the procedure to which my hon. Friend referred.
If and when the appeals procedure is established, it will not only make the burden of Members of Parliament easier, more manageable and fairer, but will restore the rights of families in the UK and potential visitors to the UK. In addition, it will make a substantial difference to the work load of the migration and visa correspondence unit because a legal right will be established, rather than an administrative process. I share the concerns of my hon. Friend about the loss of the right of appeal on visitors' visas, and I am delighted that the Home Secretary is moving to re-establish that principle.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend referred to a policy issue, not a procedural issue—the question of the word or integrity of a sponsor, and the possibility of a bond scheme arising from sponsorship. He referred to that not just in relation to what I might call ordinary sponsors, but in terms of Members of Parliament who support a particular application.
The Home Secretary has seriously considered a bond scheme as part of the White Paper on asylum and immigration. That is a sensible principle, although the details have yet to be worked out. It is, to me, evident common sense that if an individual of good standing and integrity is prepared to give his or her word—and is prepared to give a bond in some form to support that—that should be taken fully into account.
I feel sorry for the entry clearance officers, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary and those working in the MVCU when they have to write to Members of Parliament to say that there is no question about the integrity of a sponsor. That raises all sorts of important issues about the nature of sponsorship, and I am glad that the Home Secretary is addressing that in the White Paper and in future proposals.
My hon. Friend also referred to procedural issues. It may be useful if I deal with a number of points that flow from those to which he referred. The responsibility that rests with the Foreign Office is to administer the immigration rules fairly and openly to ensure that they are applied with sensitivity and to ensure that each client is dealt with quickly, efficiently and humanely. That is clearly our objective, whether the client applying for a

visa comes from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh or any other part of the world. We will set ourselves a target, as we have done through the comprehensive spending review and the Department's mission statement, to make sure that we get the best possible service delivery to those applying for visas.
I can give two examples of the way in which we are trying to improve the service in south Asia. My hon. Friend will know—as will other hon. Members from their constituency case work—that, in the past, we have had trouble with information technology in Islamabad. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)—my own Parliamentary Private Secretary—breaks all the rules by breaking into merry laughter at that point. I understand that the usual function of a PPS is to be seen and not heard, but I assume that the merry laughter was a sign of normal approval and approbation—the function of a PPS.
We have had difficulties with the information technology in Islamabad. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East will be delighted to know that we have made a substantial investment in Islamabad. Our permanent under-secretary has just visited the post, and we can feel confident now that the new system is working much more effectively. We hope that that will add to the efficiency of the system and will make sure that people are dealt with quickly.
My hon. Friend may wish to know that we are establishing new facilities in Karachi, which I will have the pleasure of opening next month. They should add to the quality and availability of service for applicants. He referred to the MVCU and to some concerns about delays in response to individual cases. First, there is a commitment on our part to recognise the extensive work load of the unit. We have done our best to ensure that there are additional staff, and that the work load is such that it can be handled fairly and effectively.
I note my hon. Friend's points and, as always, we will try to improve the service. I know that Members on both sides of the House are always keen to get the quickest possible reply. I hope that they do not all suffer the misfortune of never getting a positive reply—my hon. Friend's complaint. We will try to improve the service, and I know that my hon. Friend has a meeting arranged with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary. I am sure that they will be able to look at further ways of improving the efficiency of the service.

Mr. Vaz: Do Foreign Office Ministers have the power to exercise discretion on immigration cases?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend obviously realised the next point that I was going to raise. The simple answer is no. The Foreign Office's responsibility is to administer the procedures. The Home Office's responsibility is to set the policy, and it is Home Office Ministers who have the extra-statutory discretion. My hon. Friend reflected that point well in the way in which he structured his speech—saying that policy matters were the responsibility of the Home Office and procedural matters were the responsibility of the Foreign Office. My noble Friend


Baroness Symons does not have the discretion or the power to overturn decisions. That discretion rests with the Home Office.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Fatchett: I am not sure if it is totally procedurally correct, but I am delighted to give way to my hon. Friend.

Fiona Mactaggart: There is an area where procedure and policy almost go side by side. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) referred to the case of an elderly woman who wanted to visit. In practice, the procedure means that people over 65 who wish to visit from the sub-continent are almost automatically refused. That is not a matter of policy, but of procedure—and it is one that is causing great distress.

Mr. Fatchett: I understand my hon. Friend's point, and I will certainly bring it to the attention of my noble Friend Baroness Symons. We will make sure that there are clear instructions, so that the procedure does not violate policy in those circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East was right to pay tribute to the staff of the MVCU and I join him in paying tribute to those working in posts abroad. Many have an extremely difficult task—it is physically and administratively demanding—and I would like to put on the record the Government's appreciation of their work. As individual Members of Parliament representing constituents, we may not always agree with the decisions that come out of the process, but there is no doubt that those responsible for the decisions work hard on behalf of our constituents and the Foreign Office.
My hon. Friend also raised the issue of additional posts—in India, in particular. We keep our posts under review, and we review also their ability to provide an adequate and efficient visa service. We are moving towards much more efficient and effective levels of service. If time allowed me, I could quote the figures from Bombay, which show that there is no waiting time, for instance, for an interview for a visitor's visa application—a significant improvement. I promise that the Government will keep under review at all times the provision of posts in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. If we feel that there is a gap in the service, we will make sure—if we can—that it is filled.
Finally, I recognise the points that my hon. Friend makes about the importance of the visa regime, its governing policy and its procedure application. The ability to come to the United Kingdom is, for very many people, an important and natural element of family life, and we should support it. I hope that our procedures make it possible for more and more families to be united. It is Government policy to support the family, and our immigration policies—and our procedures for implementing those policies—should work exactly in that direction.

George Atkinson

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I first raised the matter of the detention in Dubai of my constituent, Mr. George Atkinson, in an Adjournment debate on 2 June 1998. Prior to that and subsequently, I have raised the case in a number of parliamentary questions and also outside the House.
Some colleagues have cautioned me to take care not to damage our relations with Dubai. I share their concern. The United Kingdom benefits from excellent relations with Dubai. Our business men prosper in Dubai because of the competitiveness of their products, their expertise and their professionalism, as well as the professionalism of the business people of Dubai. The relationship is of great mutual benefit. The growing trust between our two peoples is encouraged and nurtured by the lasting friendship of the Maktoum family. The friendship is mutual—we have a great affection for them.
It is not my purpose to criticise the Government of Dubai. I hold no such brief. I was elected to hold to account the Government of the United Kingdom. In making my criticism, I do not demur from the views that I expressed on 2 June last year, in which I made clear my appreciation for the assistance that I had received from Ministers and from the Foreign Office.
Indeed, I go further. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) has been extremely generous with his time, as has his ministerial colleague, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean. Their staff have been assiduous in dealing with the issues and questions that I have raised.
In August this year, I met our consul-general, Mr. Nicholas Armour. I found his advice of great value. I take this opportunity to put on the record once again my gratitude and appreciation to Mr. Armour and his staff, and to Ministers and the staff of the Foreign Office.
In all my dealings on the case of Mr. Atkinson, it has been my purpose to secure contact at ministerial level between the United Kingdom and the Government of Dubai. In that, I perceive that I have failed. That is in stark contrast to the statement made by the Foreign Secretary to the House on Monday afternoon, when he referred to the five British nationals currently detained in Yemen. He said:
On Saturday, I stressed to the Prime Minister that if the five men are to be charged, those charges must be brought soon. They and their relatives are entitled to know why they have been arrested, and the five men cannot defend themselves against allegations until they are charged. If they are not to be charged, they must be released."— [Official Report, 11 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 21.]
Quite. Surely the relatives of those detainees have every right to expect such a robust defence from their Foreign Secretary. However, that contrasts rather sharply with the case of my constituent, Mr. George Atkinson, who was imprisoned for some 13 months before formal, clear, understandable charges were brought against him. I make no criticism of the Government of Dubai for that. It was a complex and difficult investigation. Nevertheless, the question of bail should have arisen at a ministerial level—indeed, I invited Ministers to take it up.
It was only when Mrs. Atkinson—Mr. George Atkinson's wife and my constituent—secured the intervention of the United Nations working group on


arbitrary detention that a formal note was sent from the Foreign Office to the Government of Dubai relating to the fact that Mr. Atkinson had been denied bail, despite the court in Dubai ordering that he be released on bail. I hope that, after the relaunch of the Government on Monday, we can expect a more robust approach from Ministers in the future.
I shall deal now with events in Dubai. In mid-December my constituent, Mr. George Atkinson, was found guilty by a court in Dubai on charges that amount to the defrauding of the Government of Dubai. As a consequence a substantial fine was imposed on him and he is to be imprisoned for five years. Nevertheless, I persist in my belief in Mr. Atkinson's innocence. I do so on two grounds.
First, Mr. Atkinson was convicted largely on the testimony of one Steven Trutch, a former employee of Al Naboodah Laing. I have seen affidavits also sworn by Mr. Trutch that were not brought to the attention of the court in Dubai, which flatly contradict the version of events given by Mr. Trutch's affidavit submitted to the court in Dubai. I therefore believe that Mr. Trutch is not a credible witness—so much so that I sought advice from Law Officers whether the crime of perjury had been committed, given that some of the affidavits were sworn in our jurisdiction.
Of course, no charge of perjury can be brought unless we can first establish which of the three different versions of events is the true one. I do not believe that the appeal court in Dubai will be of any assistance in the matter. I believe that the appeal court will deal with the question not whether Mr. Trutch is a reliable witness, but whether he is a witness at all. I believe that the lower court in Dubai erred in accepting testimony in the form of an affidavit by Mr. Trutch, when the law in Dubai clearly requires that evidence be given in person. I am confident that the appeal court in Dubai will quash the conviction of Mr. Atkinson.
My second ground for persisting in my belief in Mr. Atkinson's innocence is the fact that he negotiated with the Government of Dubai in 1994 a waiver of all claims against him. As a consequence of his part of that agreement, he handed over substantial assets. The lower court decided that that agreement applied not to all claims, but only to civil claims against Mr. Atkinson. I believe that that is mistaken.
I have a statement signed on 5 January by a Mr. Giles Dixon, who is a solicitor. At the time of the negotiation of the agreement in 1994, he acted for Mr. Atkinson as a partner in the London firm, Turner Kenneth Brown. It is a lengthy statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and with your permission I shall quote only briefly from it. Mr. Dixon states:
Clause 7(1) of the Agreement…does not distinguish between civil and criminal claims. The Government agreed to waive and release 'all claims' which they had against Mr. Atkinson and his colleagues. The Agreement was drafted by lawyers for the Government and had they intended to confine the waiver and release to civil claims, the Agreement would have said so. During the negotiations, we requested a waiver of civil and criminal claims but earlier draft Agreements had referred only to civil claims. The Agreement of 17th January 1994 did not do so: it waived 'all' claims.

I believe that when this powerful evidence is presented at the court of appeal in Dubai, it will be a telling argument. I am confident that Mr. Atkinson's conviction will be quashed.
On 2 June 1998 the Minister pointed out that Dubai has a sophisticated legal system. I agree with him. It is a system that shares many principles with our legal system. In addition, it encompasses principles from the Sharia law and the Napoleonic code. I have been mightily impressed by the speed with which Mr. Atkinson's appeal has been organised. As a visitor over some years at Her Majesty's prisons Wandsworth and Wormwood Scrubs, I know many prisoners who would have counted themselves fortunate had their appeals been organised so swiftly in this country. I am confident that the legal system in Dubai will show its strengths and that my constituent, Mr. Atkinson, will be released so that the House need not return to this subject again.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on yet again raising the issue of George Atkinson and his family. I appreciate the keen interest that the hon. Gentleman has taken in this case. I take the opportunity of thanking the hon. Gentleman for his warm personal words both to me and to my noble Friend Baroness Symons, and also to the respective staff of our two private offices. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's words are conveyed to the staff of these offices. They will much appreciate them. It is a reassuring moment for them to be thanked by Members. Too often, the messengers are shot down rather than those who have taken the policy decision. I am sure that the staff will appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments.
Having created that broad element of consensus, I may at some stage suggest that in the hon. Gentleman's speech there was perhaps a profound element of misunderstanding about the powers and role of the United Kingdom Government and the Foreign Office. Before I break the warm consensus that flows from the hon. Gentleman's speech, however, it may be useful if I set out some of the up-to-date background to the case and some of the action that has been taken on behalf of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, Mr. Atkinson.
The House will be interested to know, as the hon. Gentleman said, that we last debated this issue on 2 June 1998. We have subsequently had the opportunity of bringing the House up to date as a result of questions asked mostly, if not entirely, by the hon. Gentleman.
Since our debate on 2 June, Mr. Atkinson's trial has been concluded. He was found guilty and sentenced on 13 December to a total of six years' imprisonment. An appeal was heard on 10 January and the hon. Gentleman's comments about the speed of that appeal will, I have no doubt, be noted in appropriate places. I am sure that there will be warm approbation for his comments about the sophisticated nature of the Dubai legal system and for the way in which it moved quickly from first hearing to appeal. We understand that a decision on that appeal will be announced at about the end of next month—it is suggested, on 28 February. In some respects, the case therefore remains sub judice, as it is part of the legal process in Dubai.
It may be worth while saying to the hon. Gentleman that there is an apparent misunderstanding of the Foreign Office's role in terms of the eloquent contribution that


he made in opening the debate. I had the impression on occasions that he was pleading his constituent's case. I see nothing wrong in that. Indeed, I thought that he was arguing his case with great skill and eloquence. I am sure that if I ever need the services of a constituency Member or a lawyer who can put forward a case, I shall be tempted, as a result of the professional and efficient way in which the hon. Gentleman advanced his argument, to approach him. However, it is not the role and responsibility of the Foreign Office to act as lawyers in court. We do not have that role; nor do we have that expertise. Nor can we be expected to provide that sort of service to every Briton who is arrested and charged overseas.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect us to provide such a service. The demand on our time and resources would be enormous. We must ensure, however, that there is a fair trial under the legal system that exists. We must try to inject our standards of fairness as far as we can. Those are the procedural points about due process. We must ensure that we have access to the United Kingdom citizen, that we assist that citizen in whatever way possible and that we make it possible for that citizen to have access to lawyers who can represent him or her during the legal process. Those are our procedural responsibilities.
We do not have the substantive responsibility of representing individual British citizens. If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, that would be an invidious position in which to be cast. Some British citizens overseas will be innocent of the charges laid against them. Others, sadly, will be guilty. The fact that someone is British does not necessarily mean that inevitably and intrinsically he is innocent of the charges laid against him. It is not our responsibility to prove guilt or innocence in certain circumstances. However, it is our responsibility to ensure that due process takes place and that the British citizen involved gains proper access to the consular services that the Foreign Office offers. We have tried to do that in George Atkinson's case.
I realise that the hon. Gentleman, in 12 minutes of consensual debate, could not resist one moment of lowering his standards and having a side-swipe at my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I understand that. It seems to be an irresistible temptation. Let me offer the hon. Gentleman a word of advice: it does not seem to be doing the shadow Foreign Secretary much good. Every time the right hon. and learned Gentleman succumbs to that temptation, it seems to damage his career even more. The hon. Gentleman has a longer career ahead of him than the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I advise him to maintain the more consensual approach, when he was doing much better.
All that my right hon. Friend was saying in his statement on Monday in the context of Yemen—as he would say in the context of any other similar case—was that it is the responsibility of the British Government, through the Foreign Office, to ensure that there is consular access, that there are consular services and that, as far as possible, due process is followed. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, what has happened in Yemen and what will happen in other cases is on all fours with what has happened in the case of George Atkinson. In every case we shall try to ensure due process and access for the British Foreign Office and our consular and embassy staff.
Our staff have been active in their contacts with Mr. Atkinson. I think that the hon. Gentleman—not on this occasion but in the Adjournment debate on 2 June 1998—made it clear that he was satisfied with the support given by the consular staff. He is right in saying that. That activity has gone on from the very first day. It has been our consular staff's responsibility to do what they can through this process to support Mr. Atkinson and his family. It is fair to say that the staff have carried out that responsibility with great skill, patience and sensitivity. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they will continue to carry out that responsibility for however long it is necessary to do so. I hope that I can join the hon. Gentleman in expressing my thanks to the consular staff in Dubai for the work that they have done and will continue to do.
The hon. Gentleman said that there was a ministerial responsibility to raise the case with the Dubai authorities and that Ministers should have intervened. Again, I think that there is an element of misunderstanding in that statement. What the hon. Gentleman so temptingly and tantalisingly offered to Ministers was almost that we should take on the role of advocacy on behalf of his constituent. We cannot perform that role. Certainly, we can ask that due procedure take place, and the hon. Gentleman knows that my noble Friend Baroness Symons called in the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to make a number of points about the George Atkinson case to ensure that due process was followed. She emphasised that, if necessary, he should be charged and that, if not, he should be freed. She also made it clear that there should be access to lawyers and legal advice.
That action took place at ministerial level, so the hon. Gentleman has no valid grounds for criticism of the Foreign Office. We cannot go to Dubai and initiate a substantive argument about the case, Minister to Minister and Government to Government. That is not our task, which is to ensure that due process works, and we have delivered that message to the United Arab Emirates ambassador. In that way, we have discharged our ministerial responsibilities, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the long period during which George Atkinson was held without charge. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have said recently in the context of Yemen, our principle is always that people should be either charged or released. That is the basis of United Kingdom law, and it is an essential freedom and human right.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention, one of the 21 thematic mechanisms set up by the UN Commission on Human Rights. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the working group came to a specific view on the George Atkinson case, but I remind the House that the group's decisions are not legally binding on Governments. However, we took immediate action, as we believe that it is the responsibility of any Government to accept the working group's advice, decisions and guidance. On 10 November last year, our consul-general, in a note to the Government in Dubai, stated that the embassy
with reference to the opinion adopted on 17 September 1998 by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention that the deprivation of liberty of George Atkinson is arbitrary, has the honour to request of the Government of Dubai the release of Mr. George Atkinson from detention.


The hon. Gentleman can therefore be reassured that the Government, acting on the opportunity provided by the UN working group judgment, asked the authorities in Dubai to release George Atkinson. It may sound harsh, but what we were really saying was that George Atkinson either had to be charged or released. We hoped that he would be released, which would have been consistent with the working group judgment, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we made those representations on behalf of his constituent. We shall continue to make those representations whenever it is necessary or possible.
From what I have said, the House will understand that the Foreign Office has been active, persistent and committed in carrying out its responsibilities through our consular services. We have provided advice and support for Mr. Atkinson and we have taken up his case with the Dubai authorities. We shall continue to take an interest in his case and to ensure that all procedures are followed. We are not the Government of Dubai and we can only discharge our own responsibilities. We do not have the power to enforce, only the power of influence, argument and representation.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the authorities in Dubai and the Government of the United Arab Emirates are friends of the United Kingdom and we have a close relationship with them. Indeed, it was the previous Conservative Government who signed a detailed defence

arrangement with the United Arab Emirates, an arrangement which is unique for a country outside NATO. That shows clearly that a close relationship exists between our two countries. In the context of that friendship, it is right, if we feel that one of our citizens is not being treated according to due process, that we should draw the matter to the attention of the host Government. We have done that, and we shall continue to do so whenever the case of George Atkinson requires it.
To sum up, the Government have discharged our responsibilities and will continue to do so. We can act only on the procedural points, not on the substantive points. We cannot make a judgment on the facts, or bring in a verdict. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman—and, through him, George Atkinson and his family—that the Foreign Office will continue to provide the services that Parliament asks us to provide, with all the commitment and resources that we have.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER PLC (GROUP REORGANISATION) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET OFFICE

The Minister was asked—

Anti-drugs Strategy

Mr. Eric Martlew: If he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [63718]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The strategy was launched in April last year. In September, we announced that more than £200 million would be added to Government spending in support of the strategy in the next three years. In December, we published a new public service agreement, setting four key performance targets for the strategy. Drug action teams throughout the country have now submitted their local action plans for 1999–2000. The United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator will produce his first annual report and a national plan in the spring.

Mr. Martlew: I welcome that answer from my right hon. Friend. In Cumbria, the new money from that initiative and the health action zone will mean five new people in post to fight the drugs threat in that rural county. I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees that we have problems with drug abuse in rural as well as in urban areas. Will he express a view on the recent reports about the increasing use of drugs, especially heroin, by children?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the work that we are doing, in particular in Cumbria, which he and I represent in the House. We remain concerned about the reports, and evidence, of the increase in the use of heroin, in particular among children. All our strategic efforts are focused on reducing those problems. The Department for Education and Employment issued guidance on the effective delivery of drug education in schools and youth services and on dealing with drug-related incidents. The police give high priority to stifling the availability of drugs, in particular heroin. Research suggests that local responses are often the most effective and at least £57 million will be invested to develop better prevention approaches in the next three years, including a new national organisation, the drug prevention advisory service, which the Home Office will launch in the spring to support the development of drug action teams and local prevention strategies.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate what is being done, but does legislation need to be changed to advance the campaign against drug dealing and trafficking? A report in one of the Belfast newspapers a year ago suggested that the police needed a change in the law. Is the tardiness in dealing with some problems due to the fact that the law needs to be sharpened?

Dr. Cunningham: We would always be willing to consider changes in the law if evidence showed that they were necessary to make our fight against drugs

more effective. If the hon. Gentleman refers that matter to me, I will be happy to consider it and to have my colleagues in Government consider it.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend do two things? Will he ensure that the co-ordination of drugs strategy pinpoints students about to go to university, who are a vulnerable group and could be targeted with some ease? Also, will he caution all those involved in the valiant struggle against drugs to stop boasting when there is a haul? When I was a Front-Bench spokesman involved in that problem, I was told by senior people in the police force that every haul represented only 1 per cent. of the drugs available. That is a sign of how much is coming into the country, so please will my right hon. Friend ensure that those involved exercise caution when boasting about drugs hauls?

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right to say that we should focus on the threat of drugs to young people, children in school as well as students, because drugs wreck lives, families and careers. On announcements about the success of the police or Customs and Excise activities in stopping drugs coming into the country in the first place, if law enforcement agencies have successes, they are entitled to tell us about them and I believe that the public want to know about them. I do not think that anyone is boasting too much.

Mr. John Bercow: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard it as a matter of principle that any Minister engaged in the forefront of the campaign against drugs should also be a non-smoker?

Dr. Cunningham: No.

Better Government Initiative

Barbara Follett: If he will make a statement on the progress of the better government initiative, with specific reference to women. [63719]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): As my right hon. Friend explained to the House on 21 October last year, the Government will publish a White Paper in the spring setting out our programme to modernise government. He chairs a Cabinet Committee that is driving forward this agenda. The White Paper will mean better government for all, as we work to improve the services that matter to those, women and men, who use them.
The Government's recent report, "Delivering for Women: Progress so far", set out the many achievements that we have already made for women, including our work on the national child care strategy, the working families tax credit and money to improve breast cancer treatment. We recently issued revised guidance to the civil service to ensure that the needs and concerns of women are taken fully into account at all stages of the development of policy and the design of services.

Barbara Follett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Given the continued under-representation of women at all levels of Government, will he take measures to ensure that the forthcoming White Paper makes provision to correct that democratic deficit?

Mr. Kilfoyle: That question is entirely consistent with my hon. Friend's sustained and committed support for the


cause of women. I assure her that, with the changes that have been made in the Cabinet Office, in terms not only of its designation but of the reallocation of the women's unit to it, and my right hon. Friend's responsibility for mainstreaming equal opportunities across Government, I can guarantee that the rights, needs and potential of women are taken fully into account in the White Paper.

Policy Co-ordination

Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received about the mechanisms for the co-ordination of Government policy. [63720]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): Since the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) have raised issues relating to the mechanisms for the co-ordination of Government policy.

Mr. Amess: Will the hon. Gentleman give some details on precisely what are the mechanisms for co-ordinating Government policy? Are they press officers or Ministers of the Crown who have resigned because they have done nothing wrong, or does this refer to his right hon. Friend, who I believe was entrusted with the policy? If he alone is responsible, does the Minister agree that he is not having too grand a time?

Mr. Kilfoyle: My right hon. Friend is having a splendid time advocating the Government's cause from his position in the Cabinet Office. The redesignation of the Cabinet Office was designed to ensure the coherence across Government that the previous Government aspired to but failed miserably to achieve, given their fissiparous tendencies. We have put on record several times, in the House and elsewhere, that the presentation of Government policy is vital to this Government, as it should have been to the previous one. We are committed to ensuring that we co-ordinate effectively the delivery of our 177 manifesto commitments. To that end, the Prime Minister established a Committee, which my right hon. Friend chairs, to drive through the new agenda for the Cabinet Office.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: In order to ensure that the Government are in a position to implement their undertakings to allow the country to decide about the single currency and the reform of the electoral system to the House, will the Minister say that the Government support the introduction of generic referendums legislation to ensure that there is fairness in the conduct of such referendums and also to ensure that they can be introduced at the appropriate moment?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The answer is no, I will not support generic referendums on behalf of the Government.

Sir George Young: On the question of responsibility for co-ordination, we were all pleased to read, in the profile of the Minister for the Cabinet Office in The House Magazine this week, that he liked his "trouble-shooting role". Is that not just as well if the year proceeds for the Government as it has begun? When will he begin? Will he begin with his Cabinet colleagues, whom he accused on Monday of not being

part of the team; will he begin with the Deputy Prime Minister, who has threatened to resign if the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) rejoins the Administration; or will he begin with the many members of the Government who made it clear over the new year that they are fed up with the Government's obsession with spin and want to focus on substance? Or are the divisions in the Government such that even the right hon. Gentleman's well-known conciliation skills are not up to the task?

Mr. Kilfoyle: It ill-behoves me to give the right hon. Gentleman advice, but one thing that he should have learnt in his long tenure of office in the previous Government is never to believe everything that is written in the newspapers, and certainly not to misrepresent my right hon. Friend's position in those matters. The new Cabinet Office and the roles defined therein will continue to lead the drive for coherence across Government, to present the Government's case well and to ensure that in both policy formulation and the delivery of services we think strategically and deliver in a joined-up fashion.

Anti-drugs Strategy

Mrs. Ann Winterton: What initiatives have been taken by Mr. Keith Hellawell to involve parents in the national anti-drugs strategy. [63721]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): Many parents were consulted by the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator and his deputy before the Government's anti-drugs strategy was published in April 1998, including some with experience of problems in their families. The strategy includes the provision of information, advice and support to parents. Drug action teams across the country have been asked to include, in their local action plans, action to consult and involve parents and carers of vulnerable young people in relation to drugs education and prevention programmes. The national picture will be reported in the spring.

Mrs. Winterton: Is the Minister aware that some clubbing magazines, which can be bought anywhere, are positively undermining parents, teachers and the Government's anti-drugs message by articles virtually promoting illegal drug use to the young? Will he ask the United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator to tackle the problem as a matter of urgency, and to advise companies, such as British Telecom, that it is utterly irresponsible to advertise in publications that encourage people to break the law?

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Lady raises an important point with which I wholeheartedly agree. I deplore the promotion, or the glamorisation, of drug taking, from wherever it may emanate. It is an insidious and evil message to give to young people in particular. I can assure her that I have already raised the issue on one occasion with my officials, but, as she has raised this important issue again in the House, I shall ensure that I raise it with them again.

Ms Gisela Stuart: Customs and Excise officers at Birmingham international airport have been put on alert because of the danger of a new


drug coming in from the United States on the daily flights from New York and Chicago, which is commonly referred to as Nazi crank, or the poor man's heroin. Can the Minister confirm that, within the drugs policy, we shall continue to co-ordinate with Customs and Excise, but also to alert parents and teenagers that, whatever the drugs are called, they are deeply dangerous and should not be trivialised?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I shall do as my hon. Friend requests, simply because what she says is excellent advice to parents and children everywhere.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of my long-standing interest, as a barrister who has prosecuted and defended drugs cases for a number of years, in tackling the drugs problem. Will he join me in paying tribute to the work done in Surrey by Dr. Tony Blowers and the Surrey drugs action team in helping to pilot many projects which I know are now being looked at by the drugs tsar, Mr. Hellawell? Will the right hon. Gentleman say that it is important to use best practice from countries such as Surrey, which have a long track record of tackling the drugs problem effectively?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I will join the hon. Gentleman in complimenting and congratulating the drugs action teams in Surrey and elsewhere which are promoting best practice. We now have a template for drugs action teams across the country. We are examining their performance exactly so that we can take the good examples such as those referred to by the hon. Gentleman and promote them across the country.

Biotechnology

Mr. David Drew: If he will make a statement on the co-ordination of Government policy on biotechnology. [63722]

Jane Griffiths: If he will make a statement on the co-ordination of Government policy on biotechnology. [63732]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The Prime Minister announced in October the establishment of the ministerial group on biotechnology and genetic modification and asked me to chair this group, on which all Departments with an interest are represented. The group is reviewing our policies on biotechnology.

Mr. Drew: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I know that he is aware of the amount of public concern on a whole range of issues from genetic modification through to xenotransplantation. May I urge my right hon. Friend to communicate as much information as possible to the public so that they can make up their minds on the basis of the facts rather than on innuendo?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The formation of the new ministerial group reinforces our already robust arrangements for overseeing developments in biotechnology. Many of those arrangements were put in place, quite rightly, by the previous Administration. We are keen to ensure that our safeguards and mechanisms

for oversight keep pace with the rapid developments in biotechnology without stifling the huge potential for biotechnology to benefit society, whether in health care, agriculture, food or environmental protection. As my hon. Friend said, it is essential to carry the confidence of the public in those developments and to be completely open with the public about the nature of them.

Jane Griffiths: I, too, welcomed my right hon. Friend's announcement before Christmas of a review of the regulatory framework for genetic modification and biotechnology. Does he agree that the best way to alleviate public concern is to maintain and achieve transparency in all those matters? Will he assure the House that that will be achieved?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that she requests. We are determined to ensure transparency. We are determined to allow people to express their views on those developments. One of the purposes of the review is to see whether it is necessary to create any new organisations to enable people to participate more effectively in the development of our policies.

Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister recognise that the policy for the approval of genetically modified foods is incoherent both within Departments in Britain and within the European Union? Does he accept that, if consumers need information, businesses equally need the assurance that the processes will be rapid, effective and transparent so that we do not miss the opportunity of major investment in Britain by being left behind on a modern and important new technology? Will the right hon. Gentleman knock heads together in Britain and Brussels?

Dr. Cunningham: x: No, I do not agree with that. I do not believe that that policy is incoherent. If the right hon. Gentleman had been listening carefully a moment ago, he would have heard me pay tribute to some of the work done by his Government in putting in place some effective controls. The purpose of the review is to check that there is no gap in our existing regulations.
I agree with the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question about needing to ensure that we do not stifle legitimate and effective opportunities for commercial exploitation. I had already said that in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) a few moments ago.

Mr. David Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman co-ordinate not only clarity of thinking in United Kingdom policy but diplomatic efforts to provide support for those countries such as Austria and Luxembourg which have taken the entirely rational decision to say that genetically modified organisms should not be released in their territory for the time being?

Dr. Cunningham: No, and I believe that those two countries are in breach of their EU obligations. The United Kingdom has taken the lead in Europe in pushing for improved, more effective legislation on GMOs and in promoting more wide-ranging risk assessments and more discussion of the legitimate ethical concerns. The way forward in Europe could not and should not be unilateral action in defiance of EU decisions.

Better Government Initiative (Older People)

Mr. Ernie Ross: If he will make a statement on the better government for older people initiative. [63724]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The better government for older people initiative is a new and significant part of our programme to modernise government. Twenty-eight local authorities, working with a Cabinet Office-led team, are developing an ambitious range of projects to improve the quality of public services for older people. I can inform the House today that we are setting up a learning network to encourage many more authorities across the United Kingdom to prepare services for an aging population and to share learning and best practice.
In addition, this morning my hon Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I announced £120 million of new funding for 33 projects promoting greater responsiveness and efficiency in the delivery of public service. One example is the integrated services for pensioners, run by the Benefits Agency, to try out new ways of integrating the services that they provide to pensioners with those provided by local authorities and others. The funding is being provided from the invest to save budget set up by the Treasury following the comprehensive spending review.
The projects that we announced today are practical examples of what we mean by modernising public services. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend asked for a statement and I am making a statement. They demonstrate—

Madam Speaker: Order. Responses are becoming far too long. I have Back Benchers to consider. Let us have an end to this answer.

Mr. Ross: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I welcome the statement that he made with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary this morning on the invest to save projects. Can he assure the House that elderly people will be involved in the projects from the outset? Will the projects deliver quality effective services for the elderly? Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether any of the projects will be in Scotland?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I can. The Scottish Office is introducing an integration of planning and delivery of health and social services for community care clients in Scotland. Two other projects will be devoted to improving services for elderly people. Of course we shall consult elderly people and organisations about the projects.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: When Labour was in opposition, it used regularly to promise that a Labour Government would reform the arrangements for payment for long-term care to reduce the need for elderly people to sell their home in order to pay for such care. Since the Government took office, we have the establishment of a royal commission and nothing else. When will we hear about the Government's proposals to discharge the pledge that the Labour party gave to the electorate before the general election?

Dr. Cunningham: That question comes ill from the right hon. Gentleman, who in many years in government

took only actions that made the problem worse. One of the purposes of establishing the royal commission is exactly to examine in detail the problems and see how best we can introduce policies to resolve them.

Duchy of Lancaster

Mr. Peter L. Pike: If he will make a statement on his duties in relation to the Duchy of Lancaster. [63725]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): As Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I administer the Duchy on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen. My responsibilities include the administration of the Duchy's estates and finances, the appointment of magistrates in the Duchy area, appointments to Church livings and several appointments in connection with the Duchy's historic duties.

Mr. Pike: As my right hon. Friend is aware, one of his duties is the administration of the Duchy benevolent fund, and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) introduced new methods to improve the way in which that money was dealt with in Lancashire—the County Palatine. Has his Department been able to monitor how effectively the new methods are working, and is there a surplus in the fund, for which worthy causes in Burnley could now make a bid?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I can confirm that we will monitor how the fund works and I shall write to my hon. Friend about that matter. As for the people of Burnley benefiting from the fund, I can inform the House that anyone living and operating in the Duchy of Lancaster territories can benefit from the benevolent fund, if their applications are approved.

Mr. Anthony Steen: As the whole House is aware of what a wonderful Department the right hon. Gentleman runs and how efficient he is, can he explain how his officials have got so tied up in red tape that they can deliver only three new regulatory initiatives to the Deregulation Committee for the next six months? If our law is so perfect and does not need improvement, will he examine European directives?

Dr. Cunningham: I am not sure what that question has to do with my responsibilities as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but, as I have already told the hon. Gentleman, we are considering that matter and I hope that we shall introduce some more proposals before too long.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does my right hon. Friend look forward to celebrating the 600th anniversary of the Duchy of Lancaster this year in the glorious city of Lancaster and, at the same time, welcoming the full fruits of the comprehensive spending review, the national minimum wage, the minimum pension guarantee and all the excellent things that a radical, reforming Labour Government have introduced?

Dr. Cunningham: The answer to that question is yes.

Electoral Reform

Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement about the Cabinet Office's co-ordination of the Government's constitutional reforms in respect of changing the system of electing hon. Members. [63727]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The Cabinet Office's role is to ensure that proper collective consideration takes place and that the Government's business is conducted in a timely and efficient way.

Sir Sydney Chapman: There has been a deafening silence since the publication of the Jenkins report, save for general opprobrium during the debate in the Chamber. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm, on behalf of the Government, that there will not be a referendum on that issue in the lifetime of this Parliament?

Mr. Kilfoyle: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Jenkins commission said that the matter was extremely complex and that, whatever changes might be anticipated, they could not be introduced before the next election. The Home Secretary stated that there should be a wide and open debate on any proposals, and that debate is now under way.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that answer, in view of what was in the Labour manifesto. Will he explain how the Government define the difference between a pledge, a promise and a commitment?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I prefer to say that we said in the manifesto that we would set up a commission. We did that, and it has reported. I should add that, of our 177 manifesto commitments, 172 have already been implemented or are already under way.

Press Officers and Spokesman

Mr. David Ruffley: What representations he has received regarding the role of Government press officers and spokesmen. [63729]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): I have been asked a number of questions by hon. Members. The Government responded on 11 January to the Select Committee on Public Administration's report about the Government information and communications service. The Committee was due to consider the report at a meeting yesterday and will decide when it should be published. Naturally, that is a matter for the Committee.

Mr. Ruffley: Why will not the Minister investigate the serious allegation that Mr. Charlie Whelan could not discharge his functions as a Government press spokesman because he had been bought by the former Paymaster General, and that the former Paymaster General had paid his wages when the Labour party was in opposition?

Mr. Kilfoyle: That is a bit rich, coming as it does from a Conservative Member who spent most of the 1990s acting as special adviser to that thoroughly discredited

Government. It is has been stated clearly that Mr. Whelan intends to retire from his position—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?] He has done the honourable thing on grounds that were never recognised by the Conservative party: that, once the purveyors of the message become more important than the Government of the day's policies, it is time for them to go. We have learnt that lesson; the Conservatives never did.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Jim Dobbin: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 13 January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
I am delighted to inform the House also that, earlier today, John Brooke was released following his five-day ordeal at the hands of his Yemeni kidnappers. We understand that he is safe and well, and will return to the country tomorrow morning.

Mr. Dobbin: This is the first question to the Prime Minister in the final year of this millennium, so I feel rather politically important at this point in time. On behalf of fellow Back Benchers, I wish the people of my constituency and the country a happy and prosperous end to this historic period.
More specifically, has my right hon. Friend seen the unemployment figures announced today? I note that in my region, more and more people are getting back to work, and in my constituency more than 200 new jobs have been created. Will my right hon. Friend give his continued support to the creation of even more highly skilled and well paid jobs, and, unlike the previous Government, introduce the additional protection of a national minimum wage?

The Prime Minister: I trust that Opposition Members will welcome today's fall in the unemployment figures. It is worth pointing out that, even facing an economic downturn, under this Government interest rates are coming down, we have £40 billion of new investment in schools and hospitals from April, 50,000 youngsters have found jobs under the new deal, and youth unemployment is at its lowest level since the mid-1970s. That is the difference between the policies for stability under this Government, and boom and bust under the Conservatives.

Mr. William Hague: Does the Prime Minister now regret that the Health Secretary said, just two months ago, that the national health service can look forward to the winter with confidence?

The Prime Minister: As a result of the money that we have put in—money opposed by the previous Government—we have managed to get through this winter in far better shape than we otherwise would.

Mr. Hague: There was no answer to the question there. In the past few weeks, we have seen intensive care bed


availability at its lowest ever level, doctors and nurses under even more pressure than before, pregnant women told not to give birth, refrigerated lorries used as temporary morgues, and people on trollies in hospitals. All those people were told they could look forward to the winter with confidence. Have not this Government's decisions made the NHS's winter difficulties worse than they should have been?

The Prime Minister: It is this Government who have put in £2.5 billion extra over the spending plans that we inherited from the Conservative Government. I visited one accident and emergency department last night, and I shall tell the House exactly what it said the problems were: a shortage of nurses; a lack of proper co-ordination between hospitals and social services; and a lack of long-term investment in the health service—all problems left to us by the Conservative Government, and all dealt with by the incoming Labour Government.

Mr. Hague: For the Prime Minister, there is always someone else to blame. The NHS is in crisis, and he says that the Government are innocent. Whatever happens in this Government, everybody always says that they are innocent. The Trade Secretary resigns, and he is innocent; the Paymaster General resigns—now we know why he was called the Paymaster General—and he is meant to be innocent; the Chancellor's press secretary resigns, or intends to resign, as we have just been informed, and he is innocent; the NHS is in crisis, and the Prime Minister is innocent. St. Tony, the angel of Islington, is always innocent.
The Government announced in November money that could have been announced in September. They cut the number of trainee nurses that we had announced and distorted clinical priorities by their targets. Why do not they take responsibility for something for a change?

The Prime Minister: It did not take the right hon. Gentleman long to try to get off the subject of the health service. His allegation that we have cut the number of nursing trainees is absolutely false. I will tell him why we have the problem with nursing shortages in the national health service today. The Tories cut by 4,000 the number of places between 1992 and 1994—while he was in government. There are 2,500 more trainee nurses today than there were when we came to office. Furthermore, if the Tories had matched our commitment to training, there would be 14,000 extra nurses on the wards.
It takes three years to train a nurse. We are putting in more resources, training more nurses and will see that nurses are properly rewarded and that there is recruitment and retention in the health service. In other words, we will deal with the appalling mess that we inherited from the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman, who said nothing about the health service, was a member.

Mr. Hague: And of course the right hon. Gentleman says nothing about an increase in trainee nurses that would have been 14 per cent., but that this Government have achieved 11 per cent. The reason that they have not been able to handle matters this winter is that they have been too busy attacking each other. The Prime Minister has been too busy: first, trying to protect the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), and then trying to rehabilitate him. What is the Prime Minister doing

treating the right hon. Gentleman as the come-back kid, when he is actually the kick-back kid? Why does he not recognise that?
Have not the past few weeks been a disgrace? Is it not time he buried the spin-doctoring politics of new Labour along with the self-serving, high-living career of the politician who invented it?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps we can return to the health service for a moment. The right hon. Gentleman made a specific allegation that it was our decision to cut planned new nurse training places by 3 per cent. I have looked into that allegation. That cut was actually made in January 1997, when his Government were still in office. In fact, far from cutting back, we achieved about 1,500 new nurses in training—more than were due that year.

Mr. Hague: What about some answers on the money announced in November that could have been announced in September, and the complete distortion of clinical priorities? While the NHS has been in crisis, personal feuds have taken the place—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. This House will come to order. Members will be heard—[Interruption.] Order.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister refuses to take responsibility for the Government's decisions. While the NHS has been in crisis, personal feuds have taken the place of political principle, personal loans have taken the place of political priorities. Does he not realise that, on that basis, no matter how often he relaunches the Government, a Government who believe in everything and in nothing cannot succeed?

The Prime Minister: One thing in which we do believe is the national health service. As a result of this Government's proposals, we have put in an extra £2.5 billion above the Conservative's published spending plans. We know what the Conservatives would have done, and we have exceeded it by £2.5 billion. From April, a further £21 billion is going into the NHS—what the right hon. Gentleman's shadow Chancellor calls "reckless and irresponsible spending". So the idea that the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to make any criticisms of the health service is absurd.
As for all the personal feuds, I will tell the House what would worry me about any Cabinet Minister, past or present. It would worry me if I ever caught any of them being filmed making train journeys across Spain.

Ms Sally Keeble: Will my right hon. Friend join me—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Lady, and she needs to be heard.

Ms Keeble: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the staff of Northampton general hospital, which I visited on Monday? I saw the outstanding work that the hospital has done in caring for people—superb work that is undermined by remarks such as those that we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition. What I have said applies not just to the


accident and emergency department, but to wards throughout the hospital where staff have coped superbly with the influx of admissions resulting from the flu crisis.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sterling work done by those and other NHS staff throughout the country who have dealt with—not created—a flu crisis underlines the need for a good pay settlement for nurses, enabling us to recruit and retain staff in an important profession?

The Prime Minister: The additional £21 billion that will be provided from April will ensure not just that we are better able to deal with the nursing shortages in the health service, but that we can make better capital investment in the service and provide better services for cancer patients and children, among others—so that, in other words, we are better able to fashion and run a health service for the 21st century. That is the commitment that this Government have made to the national health service.
We know the problems that hospitals face. We know the difficulties that they have had over the past few weeks. We know them, and acknowledge them. The great difference is that this Government are pledged and determined to do something about them.

Madam Speaker: Mr. Ashdown.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: And a happy new year to you too.
Earlier today, the Prime Minister expressed the hope that his Government would be judged not on the basis of scandals, but on the basis of their record on crime, health and education. On which of these three would he like to be judged? Would he like to be judged on the basis of falling police numbers, longer NHS waiting times or the worst crisis in teacher recruitment for more than a decade?

The Prime Minister: There are problems in schools and hospitals; but let us analyse for a moment some of the problems that people no longer raise in the way that they used to. NHS waiting lists have fallen by more than 100,000 in the past few months. That does not mean that problems do not still exist in the health service, but we are tackling them.
There are 100,000 five, six and seven-year-olds who started school in September in classes of fewer than 30 who would otherwise not have done so, and there is a £2.5 billion investment programme for schools. Over the next two or three years, every school will be linked to the internet and given the computer equipment that it needs. Yes, teacher recruitment is a problem—which is why we are presenting proposals to transform teacher recruitment, teacher training, teacher performance and teachers' pay over the next few years.
The right hon. Gentleman asks on what we would like to be judged. We would like to be judged on the basis of the progress that we are making—and, at the next election, we shall have fulfilled each of our manifesto pledges.

Mr. Ashdown: But that is a promise. The truth is that the Government are travelling in the wrong direction. Does the Prime Minister dispute any of these three facts? There are now 780 fewer police officers than there were

when he was elected; there are 10,000 vacancies for teachers in our schools; and there are 8,000 fewer nurses than the NHS needs. Does the Prime Minister not understand that the people did not vote to kick out the Tories in order to make public services worse?
Let me put this to the Prime Minister. If he were a Labour voter, lying on a trolley outside a ward that had been shut because the nurses could not be found to staff it, would he be more interested in what the Government had promised, or in why the Government had not delivered?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Sack him!

The Prime Minister: I do not think that we will put that one to the vote.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, if he reflects and is reasonable about it—I am sure he will be—that, of course, there are still huge problems in the health service. We do not put right 20 years of neglect in schools and health in 20 months, but there are things happening in the health service. We have got rid of the Tory internal market which cost so much and did so much damage. We are introducing, for example, proper nursery education for four-year-olds. There are the extra kids in class sizes under 30. Waiting lists are coming down. Yes, we have to deal with waiting times too. We have to deal with nursing shortages, and we are. There are 2,500 more trainee nurses today than there were when we took office.
Therefore, I do not dispute that, to people who are facing difficulty today, it comes as cold comfort to be told that the Government are going to do it—but we are going to do it. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] In our 20 months in office, we have done more already for the health service than that lot ever did, but we will do more. At the next election, people will see that the promises that we made on schools and health are exactly what we have delivered.

Ms Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the critical situation in Sierra Leone and I know that he will share the concerns of my constituents who have family and friends in that country. What steps are being taken by the Government; and what are the prospects for United Nations intervention to ensure that water and food are delivered to the beleaguered people of the capital city?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises a very serious issue. We are trying to do all we can to work with the UN agencies to bring humanitarian relief to people who are suffering from the rebel attacks on Freetown and, indeed, other towns in Sierra Leone. We are also in constant touch with the Nigerians because they are leading the ECOMOG forces that are trying to repel, along with the Ghanaians, those rebel forces.
Appalling atrocities have been carried out by the rebels and we are doing everything that we possibly can under the UN resolutions that have been passed to give assistance to the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone. It is important that we do all we can to support the democratic Government there.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: What does the Prime Minister say to the thousands of angry parents who, even if it was inconvenient to them,


and unlike him and many of his Cabinet cronies, followed the advice of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and ensured that their children were back for the first day of term? Is it not a case of "do as we say, not do as we do"?

The Prime Minister: I have explained the circumstances of that. I having nothing to add.

Madam Speaker: Order. We do not allow families to be used as battering rams across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Given my right hon. Friend's meeting with Mr. Mbeki last week in South Africa, does he not agree that South Africa's role is crucial in terms of wealth throughout Africa? Does he agree that the commitment to the full potential of wealth creation is important, if only to deal with matters such as crime reduction in almost all the regions of the continent of Africa?

The Prime Minister: One of the benefits of our new relationship with South Africa and of the recognition and support for the huge increase in overseas aid and development that has been introduced under this Government is that we are able to help countries such as South Africa to deal with their problems of crime and economic development, and to overcome the enormous problems caused by apartheid.
I am pleased to tell my right hon. Friend that I am confident about the future in South Africa, but I am particularly confident about our ability to play a constructive partnership role with South Africa in giving it and its people the best chance in the future.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Prime Minister will have seen the report this morning in the Welsh press that—[Laughter.] I am sure that he will have been briefed on it, anyway. The report stated that a significant section of the Labour party in Wales, disgusted by the drift towards Conservative values, is threatening to form a breakaway party. If those party members throw themselves overboard in such a manner, will the Prime Minister throw them a lifeline? Or does he accept their view that, although Wales needs devolution, his policy is to wed Wales to London?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that there was a point in there somewhere. The hon. Gentleman talks about Conservative values. I do not think that the new deal for the young unemployed in Wales is a Conservative value. I do not think that additional money for the health service in Wales is a Conservative value. I do not think that extra help for pensioners in Wales is a Conservative value. I also do not think that the help that we are giving in terms of regional development in Wales is a Conservative value. That is why I believe that people in Wales will vote Labour.

Ms Hazel Blears: As the Prime Minister is undoubtedly aware, the United Nations has designated 1999 as the year in which we can celebrate the contribution made by older people to our communities. Will he join me in congratulating the Salford project, which has brought together older people and young disaffected students in gardening projects, so that Salford

really is beginning to bloom? Will he confirm that the Government—unlike Opposition Members, who seem determined to raise issues of tittle-tattle and gossip—will put the well-being of older people right at the heart of our policies? The important issues in the United Kingdom include the well-being of older people in our community and the contribution that they make.

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, last June the Government established within government a group to ensure that we co-ordinate policies for elderly people. I congratulate her project in Salford on all the work that it is doing. The new deal for communities is putting hundreds of millions of pounds into the inner city, to help all people in the inner city—the young, the middle-aged and the elderly alike—to play their full contribution in society.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Is it true that the first that the Prime Minister knew of the loan from the former Paymaster General to the former Trade Secretary was on Thursday 16 December?

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government remain 100 per cent. committed to introducing legislation on fairness at work at the earliest possible opportunity? Does he agree that the Government's fairness at work policy and our action on the national minimum wage, the working families tax credit and the new deal demonstrate that we have done more for all working people and for the trade union movement than any other British Government in very many years?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we remain completely committed to it. My hon. Friend has just described more Labour values—and very right they are, too. In particular, the minimum wage will for the first time give people in the United Kingdom the right not to be paid below a minimum amount. It will help literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country. The working families tax credit, which is opposed by the Conservatives—they would scrap it; they would take it away—means that low-income families will have to be earning at least £11,000 a year before they pay a penny in tax. That is a Labour Government working for the people of this country.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Following the resignation of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, why will not the Prime Minister order the Cabinet Secretary to conduct a full inquiry into the financial disclosure of all Ministers and subsequently to publish the results in a proper register?

The Prime Minister: There are rules that have to be followed by all Ministers. Those rules apply to each and every one of them.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: While we are making good progress on delivering on our manifesto pledges on education, even given the demoralised state of the education sector that we took


over from that lot opposite, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a further challenge to equip the British people with the skills, particularly information technology skills, that they desperately need to create jobs and wealth into the next century? Will he consider setting up a task force to bring together the many disparate but excellent schemes that exist to ensure that we become the information technology learning centre of the world?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's suggestion is excellent, but we have got there already. We co-ordinate through a task force the bringing of computer literacy into schools and the training of teachers in it. Over the next few years, not only will all schools be wired up to the internet and kids get the chance to have the computer equipment, as I said earlier, but we shall be spending a large amount training teachers for it. That is in addition to the £55 million that was announced yesterday in support of the national numeracy strategy, around two thirds of which will support the training of teachers. That literacy and numeracy strategy is also opposed by the Tory party. The Conservatives are apparently even against children getting the basics right at 11.

Mr. John Gummer: The Government have promised a 20 per cent. cut in emissions. So far, their legislation has increased emissions, both from domestic fuel consumption and by protecting coal against gas. What legislation does the Prime Minister intend to introduce to cut emissions to meet the promises that he has given the world?

The Prime Minister: A document will be published later this year on sustainable development and how we shall meet the targets that we have set out. We are also taking a series of measures that will help, not just in the European Union but here as well, not least of which are measures on energy conservation and public transport. Those are part of the reasons why the emissions are so great and why we have to tackle the issue. The right hon. Gentleman used to have responsibility for that, so he will know that, thanks to the work done by my right

hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, we have been in the lead on those issues not just in the European Union but throughout the world.

Ms Gisela Stuart: The BBC studios at Pebble Mill are the second largest employer in my constituency. There is considerable disruption at the moment to do with the planned refurbishment of those studios. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to remind the BBC that as a public service broadcaster it has a responsibility not just to the nation, but to the regions? That involves a commitment to regional production facilities in cities such as Birmingham.

The Prime Minister: I am all in favour of regional television and regional newspapers—more so on some days than others. My hon. Friend has made her point to the BBC. I hope that those at the BBC have listened. I share her sentiments.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Is the collapse at Beachy Head to be viewed as a symbolic warning to the nation of the right hon. Gentleman's apparently growing feebleness in defending Britain's European rebate and our general rights of veto within the European Union?

The Prime Minister: Our position on the rebate and the veto has not changed at all. The hon. Gentleman and I have a simple disagreement and we may as well be clear about it. He would like to see Britain out of the European Union. A large number of his hon. Friends agree with him. I am afraid that they are the predominant group in the Conservative party today.
I happen to believe that Britain's national interest is best served by being constructive in Europe. That way, we get more out of Europe. The best test of that is that after years in which the Conservatives were unable to get their own way on the lifting of the beef ban, this Government came in and, 18 months later, got it lifted. Conservative Members may disagree, but I believe that the vast majority of people in this country do not support the anti-Europeanism of the present-day Conservative party.

Speaker's Statement

Madam Speaker: If the House will bear with me, I have a short statement to make. As a consequence of the decision that the House will meet at 11.30 am on Thursdays, deadlines for giving notice of business need to be changed. This relates to the time for submitting applications for private notice questions and for giving notice of presentation of public petitions. I have determined that, for the remainder of this Session, notices of private notice questions and the presentation of public petitions must be given by 10.30 on Thursday morning. Standing Order No. 24 applications also must be made by 10.30 am, as set out in the Sessional Orders that relate to Thursday morning sittings.

BILLS PRESENTED

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

Ms Debra Shipley, supported by Ms Margaret Moran, Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours, Mr. David Curry, Mrs. Eleanor Laing, Judy Mallaber, Mr. Tony McNulty, Mr. Paul Tyler, Dr. Jenny Tonge, Ann Clwyd, Dr. Peter Brand and Ms Dan Taylor, presented a Bill to require a list to be kept of persons considered unsuitable to work with children; to extend the power to make regulations under section 218(6) of the Education Reform Act 1988; to make further provision with respect to that list and the list kept for the purposes of such regulations; to enable the protection afforded to children to be afforded to persons suffering from mental impairment; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 February, and to be printed [Bill 12].

FUR FARMING (PROHIBITION)

Maria Eagle, supported by Jackie Ballard, Mr. Ian Cawsey, Mr. Alan Clark, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Tim Loughton, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Dr. Nick Palmer and Angela Smith, presented a Bill to prohibit the keeping of animals with a view to their slaughter solely or primarily for the commercial value of their fur; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March, and to be printed [Bill 13].

MENTAL HEALTH (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Eric Clarke, supported by Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. John Swinney, Mr. Russell Brown, Mrs. Ray Michie, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm and Dr. Gavin Strang, presented a Bill to authorise hospital managers to continue to hold, expend and dispose of the property of persons to whom section 94(1) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 no longer applies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March, and to be printed [Bill 14].

REFERENDUMS

Mr. Andrew Robathan, supported by Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Martin Bell, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Donald Gorrie, Mr. Dominic Grieve, Mr. Simon

Hughes, Mr. Oliver Letwin, Mr. William Ross and Mr. Adrian Sanders, presented a Bill to make provision for the conduct of referendums and the establishment of a referendums commission: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March, and to be printed [Bill 15].

RIGHT TO ROAM

Mr. Gordon Prentice, supported by Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Dr. David Clark, Helen Jones, Mr. David Taylor, Ms Joan Walley, Mr. David Lepper, Mrs. Diana Organ, Mr. Chris Mullin and Mrs. Betty Williams, presented a Bill to grant to the public a right to enter on foot and roam on open country in England and Wales for their recreation; to make certain financial and fiscal benefits dependent upon proper observance of the law relating to public footpaths; to ensure adequate publicity for access to relevant land; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 March, and to be printed [Bill 16].

FOOTBALL (OFFENCES AND DISORDER)

Mr. Simon Burns, supported by Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, Mr. Shaun Woodward, Mr. John Whittingdale, Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Frank Field, Ms Ann Coffey, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. Alan Keen and Mr. Peter L. Pike, presented a Bill to make further provision in relation to football-related offences; to make further provision for the purpose of preventing violence or disorder at or in connection with football matches; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 April, and to be printed [Bill 17].

ADOPTION (INTERCOUNTRY ASPECTS)

Mr. Mark Oaten, supported by Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Simon Hughes and Dr. Jenny Tonge, presented a Bill to make provision for giving effect to the Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, concluded at The Hague on 29th May 1993; to make further provision in relation to adoptions with an international element; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be printed [Bill 18].

LICENSING (YOUNG PERSONS)

Ms Chris McCafferty, supported by Mr. Paul Truswell, Jane Griffiths, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ann Clwyd, Mr. Fabian Hamilton and Mr. Marsha Singh, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor in cases involving persons under eighteen; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 April, and to be printed [Bill 19].

BUS FUEL DUTY (EXEMPTIONS)

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, supported by Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. David Curry, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Harry Barnes, Dr. Julian Lewis, Mr. Oliver Letwin, Mr. Bowen Wells, Mr. Robert Syms, Mr. John Hayes and Judy Mallaber, presented a


Bill to exempt operators of certain community bus services from payment of excise duty on fuel used in operating those services; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March, and to be printed [Bill 20].

STREETWORKS

Mr. Peter Atkinson, on behalf of Mr. Christopher Fraser, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to streetworks; to make provision for a streetworks registration scheme; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March, and to be printed [Bill 21].

CHEQUES (SCOTLAND)

Mr. John Swinney, supported by Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mr. Michael Moore, Mr. Desmond Swayne and Mr. Alasdair Morgan, presented a Bill to amend the law of Scotland in relation to the effect of presentation of cheques for payment: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March, and to be printed [Bill 22].

NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS

Mr. Tony Colman presented a Bill to enable effect to be given to the protocol signed at Vienna on 22nd September 1998 additional to the agreement for the application of safeguards in the United Kingdom in connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March, and to be printed [Bill 23].

HEALTH CARE AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Sir Robert Smith, supported by Mr. Peter Bottomley, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. Michael Colvin, Ms Roseanna Cunningham, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Alan Simpson and Mr. James Wallace, presented a Bill to require certain health bodies to draw up reports on ways in which they may use energy efficiency schemes to assist persons living in fuel poverty to heat their homes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be printed [Bill 24].

ROAD TRAFFIC (VEHICLE TESTING)

Mr. Andrew Hunter, supported by Mr. Tony Colman, Mr. Humfrey Malins, Mr. Mark Oaten, Mr. Bill O'Brien, Mr. Richard Page and Mr. Brian Sedgemore, presented a Bill to make further provision about the testing of motor vehicles for the purposes of Part II of the Road Traffic Act 1988; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March, and to be printed [Bill 25].

BREEDING AND SALE OF DOGS (WELFARE)

Mr. Tim Loughton, on behalf of Mr. James Clappison, supported by Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Graham Brady, Sir Richard Body, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Richard Allan, Mr. Ian Cawsey, Angela Smith, Mr. Colin Pickthall,

Mr. Andrew Miller and Caroline Flint, presented a Bill to amend and extend certain enactments relating to the commercial breeding and sale of dogs; to regulate the welfare of dogs kept in commercial breeding establishments; to extend powers of inspection; to establish records of dogs kept at such establishments; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March, and to be printed [Bill 26].

PUBLIC HOUSE NAMES

Mrs. Ann Winterton, supported by Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Crispin Blunt, Mr. Peter Bradley, Mr. Tom Cox, Dr. Lynne Jones, Mr. Kerry Pollard, Mr. David Rendel, Ms Christine Russell, Mr. Graham Stringer and Mr. Nicholas Winterton, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the names of public houses; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March, and to be printed [Bill 27].

HEDGES (CONTROL)

Mr. Andrew Rowe presented a Bill to subject hedges in residential areas to local authority planning control: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 March, and to be printed [Bill 28].

PLANNING APPEALS BILL

Mr. Nigel Evans, supported by Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mrs. Angela Browning, Dr. Julian Lewis, Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. Andrew Robathan and Mr. Robert Syms, presented a Bill to remove the right of appeal to the Secretary of State against certain planning decisions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be printed [Bill 29].

COMPANY AND BUSINESS NAMES (CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ETC.)

Mr. Andrew Lansley, supported by Mr. Michael Trend, Mr. Graham Brady, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. Robin Corbett, Ms Gisela Stuart, Mr. James Paice, Mr. Nick St. Aubyn and Mrs. Louise Ellman, presented a Bill to make provision concerning the approval of company or business names containing the expression "chamber of commerce" or any related expression; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 February, and to be printed [Bill 30].

FUEL POVERTY AND ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. John McAllion, supported by Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. David Chaytor, Ms Roseanna Cunningham, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Clive Efford, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. David Lepper, Sir Robert Smith, Mr. Alan Simpson and Mr. Matthew Taylor, presented a Bill to require energy conservation authorities to draw up reports concerning fuel poverty and to designate officers with responsibility for energy conservation; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March, and to be printed [Bill 31].

Opposition Day

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Government Information

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the extent to which politically-partisan presentation, spin-doctoring, unattributed briefing and the pursuit of personal rivalries between Ministers have become characteristics of the presentation of government information; believes that clearer guidelines need to be established in this field; affirms that the public interest is in having far greater access to the information used by Government in making decisions which affect people's lives; and calls upon the Government to introduce its draft Freedom of Information Bill as a matter of the highest priority to enable early consideration, to present such a Bill later this Session which can be carried over into the next Session of Parliament, and to ensure that the Bill fully reflects the proposals set out in the White Paper, Your Right To Know.
This is the second of three debates introduced by Liberal Democrats today. This morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) introduced the debate on the crisis in the health service. This debate will be followed by a debate about Britain's leadership position in Europe.
Christmas is supposed to be a season of good will, but not for this Government. After the holiday, Westminster was strewn with political corpses on the scale of a gangster movie or a performance of "Macbeth". The main victims came from the ranks of those who are or have been responsible for purveying Government information. The battle had largely been about their activities.
The regime of partisan press briefing and press management that was at the centre of those events came into being after a series of high-profile departures of more traditional civil service press officers. One of them created the "Tumbrel Club" to describe the departed civil service press officers. Senior press officers from the Treasury, Department of Social Security, Ministry of Defence, Scottish Office, the Overseas Development Agency and the Northern Ireland Office all went as the new Government devised a new type of press operation.
In a telling piece of evidence to the Public Administration Committee, Steve Reardon, one of the casualties, said:
The ostensible reason for my being required to leave my post was the need for a change of style"—
a phrase, he added, that
I constructed at the behest of the Department to account for my going.
Perhaps some changes were needed. Perhaps better central co-ordination was required. Perhaps a sharper round-the-clock operation was needed. The bulk of the civil service press staff remain in place under new leadership. Are the new people at the top not doing a good job? In some respects they are, but the problems have proved very serious indeed. I refer particularly to their enthusiasm for unattributed briefing and spinning. Their very anonymity is often a deception on the public.

Statements are made that are not open to challenge. No one knows whether they have any authenticity or credibility.
An extremely effective letter appeared in The Independent on Tuesday. It referred—interestingly, from my point of view—to a claim that had appeared in The Independent that the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Home Secretary
are to join forces in an attempt to prevent Mr. Blair calling a referendum on electoral reform before the next election.
The writer of the letter, Mr. Michael Kay, stated:
I scoured the rest of the story for quotes from these three 'heavy-hitters'. Not a word. Andrew Grice quotes 'a source close to Mr. Brown'. Later in the story Colin Brown in Cape Town quotes 'one Blair aide'.
Who are these invisible people who must not be named?
Mr. Kay went on:
These incognito sources are the very spin doctors so reviled in your editorials.…Reveal your sources. Some of your readers might find it intriguing to evaluate the quality of your material. Or is it none of our business?
That is a fair and strong point, made by a member of the public in that correspondence.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I read Mr. Kay's letter. I took it as a criticism of Mr. Grice, the Lobby system and the way that newspapers use it, not as a criticism of Government press officers.

Mr. Beith: If the hon. Gentleman continues to listen, as he is doing, he will find that some of my criticisms spread over on to those who operate the system. It takes two to operate the system—those purveying the dubious information, and those who put it into the media.
A great deal of work is done by the Government press machine to convey to media—which are sometimes gullible and sometimes just not in a position to make a proper assessment—a false picture of events. That is especially true when things must be done in a rush. One of the worst examples that I have ever known in 25 years in this place was the press pack on the Scott report under the previous Government. Journalists had no time to read that seven-volume report. They relied initially, at least, on the Government summary, which dealt almost entirely with the charges that had not been proved, ignoring the ones that had. When Lord Justice Scott was asked about that when giving evidence to a Committee, he agreed that the picture presented by the Government summary was not an accurate summary of his report. It was systematically selective information to give a false picture. It was sanctioned by civil servants as well as by political advisers.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree, on reflection, that the way in which the Scott report was handled provided eloquent confirmation of the contents of the report itself?

Mr. Beith: Indeed. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his recognition as a Privy Councillor in the new year's honours. I agree with his point.
Successive Governments have used similar techniques in public spending announcements, with press releases for Departments whose spending has been cut pretending that they have great new riches to spend on good causes.


I cannot remember a Budget-time press release in which a Department says that it will spend less in future, and that it is a very good thing that that will be so.
The spin doctors achieve the same thing in a different way. They do so by selectively trailing speeches that will promise new initiatives and new spending, when journalists have no access to the actual figures or to any advice on them. The spin doctors get away with repeated recycling of the same money. The Home Secretary did it on Tuesday and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment does it regularly. By trailing stories selectively, the process is bypassed by which major public announcements are supposed to be subject to questioning in the House. You have shown your strong disapproval of that practice, Madam Speaker. The practice is at least in part designed to avoid scrutiny by ensuring that an announcement is taken as news at face value. The favourable message is clearly established in the broadcast bulletins well before it can be undermined by any inconvenient facts.
I say to those involved in the Government press machine that it is a mistake to assume that Ministers will always get a less favourable story if they submit themselves to scrutiny in the House. Look for example, at the press coverage of the Foreign Secretary being questioned by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), on Monday. As one of the sketch writers described the Opposition Front-Bench attack,
with enemies like these, who needs friends?
It is not necessarily in the Government's interests to go about things in this way and undermine a process that is good at ensuring that announcements that are all hyperbole and not substantial are challenged effectively and questioned and that someone who has a sound case to put gets a fair hearing.
The Government press team prefer not to take the risk of letting Ministers win the argument. It would rather get the retaliation in first.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I wonder whether the agreement that was entered into by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was accurately reported in the press.

Mr. Beith: It was extremely inaccurately commented on very widely. A fair degree of publicity was given to the precise words that had been used in the correspondence between my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister. I refer those who are interested to the quotable words and not to any unattributed briefing from any source.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On that point—

Mr. Beith: I was going to say much more about it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait for a while. He may find that I cover something that he wants to say. If not, he can have another try later.
Anonymous briefing can be seriously damaging to Britain's national interest. The classic instance was when the now famous Mr. Charlie Whelan set out to convey that the Government's policy on entering the single currency was roughly the opposite of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was. The Chancellor had produced a

measured interview for The Times, setting out the information that the Government would put the issue to the British people if and when they judged that the economic circumstances were right for them to do so, leaving open the option of a referendum before the next election.
From his office in the bar of the Red Lion, Mr. Whelan phoned journalists on his mobile phone to say that the Chancellor really meant to say that there would be no referendum this side of the next general election. I remember the incident well because I was phoned by the BBC's "The World Tonight" and asked to comment on the change in the Government's policy, which had come from a good source in government.
The story seemed so implausible to me that I rang our press office, which assured me that there was indeed such a source. One of our staff had been in the Red Lion, off duty, and could not avoid—[Interruption.] Our man in the Red Lion could not avoid hearing the call made by Mr. Whelan, who is never sotto voce. There is no soft pedal on his piano. The Chancellor's measured interview was effectively torn up. No one knew what was the real story, the Government's credibility was damaged and markets were left in confusion. That is not what I would call a good day's work.
Another frequent criticism is that Government spin doctors get their way by bullying and intimidating. Chris Buckland wrote of Charlie Whelan that
he is suspected of punishing those who refuse to toe the line by freezing them out. He is even thought to have suggested that editors should sack senior political staff.
However, it takes two to spin, according to Derek Draper—and he should know. The press do not have to play the game, even if, in Buckland's words,
the fallout from his"—
Whelan' s—
briefings kept everyone in business for days or even weeks.
The bullying is all bluster. Responding to it in the hope of being given a juicy story in the future is too high a price to pay. Perhaps the Government's recent problems have been greater because more journalists realise that. The spin doctor's bluff has been called.
It is remarkable—indeed, it is poetic justice—that the victims of the excessive use of spin doctor techniques include the Government themselves. The murky atmosphere of anonymous briefing may be seen as a means of assisting the Government, but it is also an environment in which unattributed personal attacks and character assassinations flourish. That did not start with the current Government: John Biffen was famously described as a "semi-detached" member of the Cabinet by what was then referred to as a Downing street source, which was of course Sir Bernard Ingham. Sir Bernard also called Francis Pym "Mona Lott".
There are, however, deep personal rivalries in the present Government, and such enhanced scope and status have been given to partisan press officers that they have caused the Government serious damage. It is not as if they were not warned that that would happen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) pointed out in an Adjournment debate last year,
The issues that I shall raise may be batted away today …but the Government are on a sticky wicket and eventually they will


find themselves out if they do not take action."—[Official Report, 24 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 1152]
They have certainly found themselves out.
The Minister most associated with spin doctor techniques, the past master of the black arts, himself lost his senior Cabinet post because someone—we do not know who it was—maliciously leaked details of the private loan by which he had financed his rather grand choice of house. A Cabinet Minister of undoubted talent and dedication, who had an important contribution to make as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has been lost to the Government because of the culture that he, in his previous role, had helped to create.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: As the right hon. Gentleman is talking about unattributed briefings and the pursuit of personal rivalries, he may wish to cast his memory back. Many of us watched last year's Liberal Democrat conference with great interest, hearing a spate of statements emanating from unattributed briefings by, we are told, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—that may, of course, be incorrect—and others about the future prospects of the party leader, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say about that?

Mr. Beith: I have never heard of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey saying anything remotely unattributable.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) interrupted me as I was reaching a serious point about the resignation of the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). The right hon. Gentleman did not resign because of any abuse of public office, or any failure of policy—matters for which Ministers should more often resign. In fact, he resigned as a consequence of the culture that he had helped to create, and that has deprived him of the opportunity to give service that some—perhaps even all—of his colleagues in the Government would have valued highly. The Prime Minister may be able to pull waving Danes into his dinghy, but if we are to judge from the reactions of some Labour Members, it will take him a lot longer to pull the right hon. Member for Hartlepool back on board.

Sir Robert Smith: There are practical consequences to the departure of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). My right hon. Friend will know that the north-east of Scotland is highly dependent on the oil industry, which faces crisis as the world oil price appears to be staying low. As Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool was due to chair a task force this week to consider strategies to help the industry. The consequence of his having fallen into a trap is delay in dealing with real, practical problems.

Mr. Beith: That shows how real problems in the real world result from what seem to be games in the hothouse world of Westminster, and particularly of Whitehall press briefings.
One resignation was not the end of the story. Following the resignation of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, the then Paymaster General—the hon. Member for

Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson)—also resigned, ostensibly on the same issue, although it somewhat strained credulity to try to imagine that other matters over a period had not contributed. Of course, the title of Paymaster General is something of an historical oddity, but it was spot on when the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West was in opposition.
Then, one of the two most prominent political press officers in the Government's service found himself scanning the job advertisements. Incidentally, can the Minister for the Cabinet Office tell us whether that is all that he now does? Does he sit at his desk reading the job advertisements and sending out his curriculum vitae, or is he engaged in Government work? Unwanted civil servants used to be sent on "gardening leave". Has he not got a garden? Perhaps the former Paymaster General and the Britannia building society could help him. Again, I have a serious point. Will he be restricted in the private sector posts that he can take up because of the access to Government information that he has had? Is he continuing to have that sort of access? We are entitled to know that. Other senior Treasury civil servants would be restricted if they moved out to a private sector post.
Negative briefing about other Ministers and officials was not limited to the Chancellor's team. A Downing street spokesman was quoted referring to Mr. Whelan as "a little oik". I still find it extraordinary that so many Ministers and their advisers should be prepared to inflict damage on their own Government by denigrating other parts of that Government. They fire shots at each other, which make holes in the boat in which they are all sailing, and I do not know why that does not occur to them from time to time.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that his colleagues never talk about each other? Perhaps 1 can brief him privately after this debate about the occasion on which my wife and I were in Gandhi's listening to two partners of two of his colleagues discuss his future and that of a number of other Liberal Democrat Members. That behaviour is not unique to one party.

Mr. Beith: At least no one is being paid out of public funds to do it.
In dealing with such matters, the lead must come from the top. No one could accuse the Government's chief press officer of failing to lead or to do a diligent, skilled and generally pretty effective job on behalf of the Government and, more particularly, the Prime Minister. He slaps down Ministers for being off message or for failing to clear their media appearances. I see no sign of leadership by example or by precept against negative briefing, yet we are talking about behaviour that is forbidden in the Government's model contract for special advisers, which is mentioned in the Government amendment. Section viii of schedule 1 states:
Special advisers…must observe discretion and express comment with moderation, and avoid personal attacks".
I am not aware of any disciplinary proceeding against any special adviser for breaking that rule. It is not even a case of "Three strikes and you're out", which may be one way to tackle it.
That leads me directly to the role of Alastair Campbell, the Government's chief press secretary.

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): Much of what the right hon. Gentleman has said has been amusing and entertaining, although he is making a meal of it, but Alastair Campbell is not the Government's chief spokesman. He is the Prime Minister's official spokesman; the head of the Government Information and Communications Service is an entirely different person. The right hon. Gentleman should do his homework more carefully and get those details right.

Mr. Beith: I do not think that anyone anywhere in the system would deny the leadership role exercised by Alastair Campbell. No one who has been in receipt of any of his missives could imagine that he was behaving other than from a position of leadership as regards the entire Government press and information operation.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: rose—

Mr. Beith: I shall develop this point before I give way. The position of the Prime Minister's chief spokesman has developed—with considerable controversy—under successive Governments. Under Mrs. Thatcher, Bernard Ingham's role moved a lot of boundaries and was the subject of much criticism at the time. Following the Mountfield report and a special Order in Council, that position has developed distinctive features under this Administration. Mr. Campbell is a special adviser, but, unlike any other, he has management responsibility for the civil service. He is neither a Cabinet Minister nor a member of the Cabinet secretariat, yet he attends Cabinet meetings. I can see the case for that. It is better that a senior press officer understands the full background to the decisions that he has to explain. However, if those privileges are given, they should be accompanied by tighter rules about what is acceptable in someone who does not have all the responsibilities, restrictions and disciplines to which established civil servants are subject.
Mr. Campbell is identified, although not by name, as the Prime Minister's official spokesman. I welcome that change too, because at least when that phrase is used we know who said something and what authority it carries, which we never knew when absurd phrases such as "Downing street says" or "sources close to the Secretary of State say" were used. What sources? How reliable are they? Who authorised them? We are not allowed to know, and so cannot evaluate what is reported. Journalists should be less willing to play this game, even if it costs them a story or two.
Now that the official spokesman's role is acknowledged, we may as well acknowledge the individual as well and end the farce of a senior public official being seen on television trying unsuccessfully to get out of the shot while some present or resigning Minister is interviewed. It is like the Punch and Judy man who forgets to keep his head down and appears in the frame between the puppets that he is supposed to be operating. When a political adviser takes on powers that have always been reserved to impartial civil servants, sits at Cabinet meetings and is identified as an official spokesman, he must also be charged with a duty, under the responsibility of the head of the home civil service,

to maintain and inculcate principles of objectivity, fairness and loyalty, both to the Government as a whole and to the integrity of the public service as a whole.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows, and will forgive me for taking the liberty of reminding him, that Orders in Council created three special adviser posts, two of which are filled by Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell. They set out clearly the terms, conditions and responsibilities of the posts. One of the many novelties introduced by the Government in the cause of modernisation, transparency and accountability was the model contract for special advisers, which sets out clearly their responsibilities. Does he accept that Alastair Campbell's contract, unlike that of any other special adviser, has been placed in the public domain?

Mr. Beith: I was aware of all those things. I referred to the Order in Council and pointed out that the model contract was in force when all these things happened. If the model contract is working, why did they happen? Why have all the Government's problems arisen? Someone must make more effort to ensure that the contract is abided by.
The Order in Council was essential because, without it, no civil servant would have been required to accept instructions from Alastair Campbell. The process is entirely proper, procedurally correct and in place, but certain responsibilities assume a larger importance in that light. One could react in different ways to this situation, which has undoubtedly caused a fair bit of harm. More people could be sacked, to add to those who have already resigned, or we could try to find a way of ensuring that the system—not all of which we can object to or stem the tide of—observes proper boundaries and that things damaging to the public interest or the Government do not happen under it.

Mr. Norman Baker: I have the model special adviser contract. Page 12 states:
Special Advisers must not take public part in political controversy…must observe discretion and express comment with moderation, and avoid personal attacks".
Does my right hon. Friend think that that applies to Mr. Alastair Campbell?

Mr. Beith: My hon. Friend has done much work on this and first brought the right hon. Member for Hartlepool to the House to answer questions on his responsibilities. He is merely giving a fuller quotation of the passage in the model contract, which I consider applies to all special advisers, that I quoted earlier. Someone has not been keeping the terms of that contract. We do not necessarily know who in the case of the leaking of the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's loan details. Somewhere along the line, the rules are being broken. It is not relevant to insist that the Prime Minister's principal press spokesman observes the contract but that he takes the lead in ensuring that they are observed throughout the service in which he plays such a key role.
The implications of the duties need to be spelled out more clearly at various levels in the Government information services and among ministerial advisers


and Ministers. The Public Administration Committee published a report on those issues last July. The Government's response has not yet been published, although I think that it has been sent to the Committee. There were two reports, one from the Government's side and one from the Opposition. In their rather more timid offering, even the Government's supporters on the Committee call for a clear code of rules. Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members produced minority conclusions that went further by calling for tapes of Lobby briefings to be kept for a year and for political appointees who do significant party political activities to be paid from party funds. They also called for the Modernisation Committee to consider your concerns, Madam Speaker, about the sharp growth in pre-briefing of Government announcements, which should be made first in Parliament. I am not sure that the Modernisation Committee is the right Committee to do that, but the matter certainly needs considering further.
What is the Government's response to the challenges to clean up their press act, especially now that they have seen that they, too, can be the victims of a practice that has got completely out of hand? The Government's amendment to our motion refers to the model contract for special advisers, dating from May 1977, which has been in existence throughout all these abuses, and which has clearly been flouted.
The amendment refers to
the long accepted conventions of impartiality and propriety".
Partiality and impropriety are acknowledged to have taken place. I suspect that the Minister for the Cabinet Office knows that something needs to be done, and he would do himself and the Government credit if he admitted it and told us precisely what he intends to do. If he does not intend doing anything, the Government will soon be in trouble again on these matters.
The information that the public actually want is rarely the kind of information that press officers are briefed to provide. It is information that they are denied by the operation of official secrecy and the absence of a freedom of information Act. Gulf war veterans want to know to what health risks they were subject and what tests are or are not being carried out on their exposure to depleted uranium, yet that information is fiercely guarded.
People wanted to know what the Government knew about bovine spongiform encephalopathy. That is coming out at this late stage only because there is an inquiry. They want to know what the Health and Safety Executive knows about the pollution being emitted by a factory. They want to know why the Medicines Control Agency will not license a drug that they think will help them. That is the kind of information that affects their lives or livelihoods, which is so often closely guarded by Government, and which they will not have unless we have a freedom of information Act. The Government promised us one, but where is it?
In a written answer on 21 July 1998, the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), said that the Government's aim was to publish the draft Bill by the end of September. Then he became a casualty, and let us not forget the negative briefing to which he was subjected.
Almost four months have passed since the Government's target date for publication. The draft Bill will be considered this Session, but a final Bill is unlikely to be introduced until the 1999–2000 Session, pushing the implementation of such legislation into the next millennium. That is hardly appropriate for legislation that the Government described in July 1998 as a priority issue.
When the right hon. Member for South Shields was removed from office, responsibility for the freedom of information Bill was transferred to the Home Office. Since then, progress on the draft Bill has slowed.
Liberal Democrats have always regarded the implementation of a freedom of information Act as a priority to provide a right of access to all but the most sensitive information. The Labour party has been committed to freedom of information for, I think, 25 years, and it was included in its 1977 election manifesto. The pre-election "Cook-Maclennan" talks also agreed that the public have a right to know what Government are doing in their name, and committed both parties to the cause.
Roy Hattersley said, before the 1922 election—I mean, the 1992 election. Roy Hattersley is very senior, but he carries his age better than that. He said before the 1992 election that a freedom of information Bill should begin on Labour's first day in Government before its errors in office reduced its enthusiasm for reform.
It is a sad fact that political parties' interest in freedom of information seems to wane as their ability to do something about it increases. The Government have an opportunity to prove that wrong. The Home Secretary claims that delay is caused by difficulty in drafting the legislation. But the former Chancellor of the Duchy has said that the draft Bill was 90 per cent. complete when he left office. Are the Government now saying that he left the most difficult bits until last?
It is now 13 months since the White Paper was published. That should have been ample time for the Government to translate a far-reaching and detailed White Paper into a draft Bill. After all, they have to prepare only a draft Bill. It is not the last word. It will go for scrutiny to the appropriate Committee of the House over several months, and amendments and corrections can still be made, so it does not matter if there are some mistakes in the Bill at this stage. Let us get the process going.
If the Bill is introduced this month, it could be examined by the Select Committee on Public Administration in the spring, and the final Bill could then be introduced in this Session and carried over to the next Session. I believe that the Government will use that procedure for the financial services and electronic commerce Bills. If they are really committed to freedom of information, they should take urgent action to ensure that the Bill is ready at the earliest opportunity.
The Home Secretary has publicly claimed to support greater openness in government and claims that he is demonstrating that. The biggest test will be in the extent to which his draft Bill meets the far-reaching proposals in the White Paper "Your Right to Know", which we welcomed and want to see enacted. Many advocates of freedom of information are concerned that the Bill may water down the strong proposals in the White Paper.
There are many supporters of greater openness both inside and outside Parliament. In the previous Session, 241 hon. Members, 195 of them Labour, signed an


early-day motion expressing concern at the prospect of any delay in bringing the measure forward. It was one of the most popular early-day motions in that Session. The Government's Back Benchers are with us in saying, "Get on with it."
Let us have more of the information that the public really want through a freedom of information Act and less of the partisan spin doctoring, which started out as a means of massaging the message and has ended up with blood all over the carpet. Clearer rules about what people can and cannot do should be established and implemented. It is a job in which the enforcer presumably has a role to play. I hope that he will now tell us what he is going to do.

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the Government's commitment to modernising Government; commends the professionalism of the Government Information and Communications Service (GICS) in carrying out the important task of effectively communicating and explaining policies, decisions and actions of the Government of the day; recognises that the Mountfield Report set out the future direction of the GICS and confirmed the long accepted conventions of impartiality and propriety; believes that the model contract for special advisers, which defined, for the first time in a public document, the roles and responsibilities of special advisers, should be welcomed; applauds the Government's intention to publish a draft Freedom of Information Bill as soon as possible; and welcomes the intention of the Select Committee on Public Administration to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill.
Let me try to deal quickly with what I will describe as the first part of the entertaining, if rather long drawn-out, speech of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). He began by talking about some of the changes that have taken place. I will not accept any criticism of a Government who have come in after 18 years of a previous Administration of an entirely different kind and made changes. When the previous Conservative Administration changed Prime Ministers, they changed personnel. That is in the nature of a change of Government. Of course, changes have been made and there will be more to come because the Government are about changing Britain. I cannot accept the idea that we should have continued exactly as before with the same personnel and the same approach as under the previous Administration.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made much of anonymous comments and quotes. As I have said, he spoke with considerable humour, and, by describing those comments as anonymous, he defined the nature of the problem. The fact that they are anonymous makes it difficult for anyone, however great the will, to do anything about them. When we read in the newspaper, "Friends of Mr. Ashdown", we all know that that means the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) or his office. We can all read the code. In fact, we read that quite frequently in the newspapers and hear it on the radio and television. The other claim—that the Liberal Democrats are as white as driven snow and that the Labour and Conservative parties are mired in this business of spinning or briefing either against parties or between parties—is something else that I cannot understand.
As has been pointed out, at the last Liberal Democrat conference, we were regaled with a number of candidates who were lining themselves up to replace the right hon.

Member for Yeovil. Let us not pretend that this is a problem of only one or two parties and that, somehow, other political parties, important or large or small, are somehow immune to it or have been inoculated against its temptations.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed asked me what I intend to do about it. I am inclined to photocopy the Sermon on the Mount and place it on the walls of the offices of all my ministerial colleagues and their advisers, particularly that part which says:
Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin".

Mr. John Bercow: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to guarantee this afternoon that no current serving member of the Cabinet has, since 1 May 1997, made a disobliging remark about a Cabinet colleague to a journalist at any time?

Dr. Cunningham: Of course not. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that he is making a demand to which I could not possibly respond in the way that he suggests. I reflected recently on my role and responsibilities in a conversation with the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) who once performed a similar role, although it was as the Deputy Prime Minister in the previous Administration. He told me of some of his experiences. One Friday, he was alerted to the fact that there would be nine or 10 anti-Government stories in the Sunday newspapers. He got his team together and it went to work through Friday, Friday evening and Saturday. On Sunday, there were 27 anti-Government stories in the Sunday newspapers. So let us not pretend that our esteemed friends and colleagues who report on our proceedings in this Chamber and elsewhere are not themselves sometimes the unwitting victims of some of this stuff or simply fall to the temptation of writing it. Unfortunately, some of them seem to be addicted to it. The reality is that it will never completely go away.
I say to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and everyone else in the House that it is a bit much to focus a significant part of a speech on any person who does not have the opportunity to come here, join in the debate and speak up on his own behalf.

Mr. Tyrie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No, not for the moment. I want to make this point.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) intervened in the speech of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to say that, had it not been for the unfortunate resignation, as he put it, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), some action may have been taken in respect of problems facing the oil industry. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not persuade his right hon. Friend to hold the debate on the oil industry rather than the subject that the Liberal party has chosen.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed even said that we knew what happened in the horrendous catastrophe of BSE only because the Government set up a judicial inquiry, as though it was an error for us to set it up. We set up the inquiry exactly because we wanted the facts to come out for the benefit and information of


the public. I should have thought that that was one matter on which the right hon. Gentleman would be persuaded to give us some credit.
One can go back through the reports, debates and activities of the House for decades, nay, generations. It was Churchill, after all, who said that nothing should be allowed to interfere with the rancour and asperity of politics. That was a very long time ago. We know that there is rivalry not simply between parties but within parties. I say to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, to my colleagues and to the House that of course one wants to minimise the consequences of that. I have made it clear in recent interviews and broadcasts as part of my responsibilities that the Prime Minister wants the message to go out clearly that he expects his Ministers to work in a coherent team not only in the best interests of the Government but essentially and more importantly in the best interests of the country and its people as a whole.
Let me turn to some of the matters of more substance that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed raised. He talked about people who were in powerful positions properly exercising that power. I agree with him on that. That is essential. Anyone who has worked, or works, closely with any Prime Minister is in a position of considerable power. I worked with Lord Callaghan when he was Prime Minister as his Parliamentary Private Secretary. I saw a great deal of him and was involved in much of what he did. Cabinet Ministers used to stop me and consult me, ask me questions and ask my opinion. When I left that position and became a junior Minister, they used to pass me in the corridor as if I were invisible. Anyone who works closely with a Prime Minister is in a powerful position. I agree that it is essential that we have in place safeguards and that we ensure the proper exercise of that power.
It is exactly for the reasons that I have given that we were the first Government to publish the model contract for the employment of people such as Alastair Campbell. No Government had done that ever before. While I accept that some people may be critical of some of the terms and conditions of that contract, I am not aware that any Member of the House from any party has written to us suggesting any amendments to it. I assure the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that there is no evidence of any abuse of that proper exercise of power, nor did he produce any such evidence.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is it not also the case that what marked out the Labour Government was that they got rid of almost all the in-house information officers in each Department, because they wanted their message to be put across not in an official way, but by spin?

Dr. Cunningham: That is not true; it is a wholly inaccurate statement. I assume that the hon. Gentleman could not have listened carefully to my opening remarks, because the first point that I made to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was that we were determined to make some changes; changes in policy, certainly, but also necessary changes in personnel, where they were appropriate. As I also emphasised, changes in personnel were made by the right hon. Member for

Huntingdon (Mr. Major) when Baroness Thatcher left 10 Downing street; there is nothing wrong with that at all—although whether those changes were an improvement is another matter.
I must move on to some of the issues of greater substance raised by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I am pleased to have the opportunity to put on record the Government's appreciation of the important work done by the Government Information and Communications Service. When he discussed the service, the right hon. Gentleman largely confined his remarks to only two people in the whole of a large, extensive and effective service. The staff of that service play a key role, all day and every day, in carrying out the important task of effectively communicating and explaining the policies, decisions and actions of the Government of the day. They do so through the media and through paid publicity campaigns, conducted in an appropriate way, having regard to the need to be able to justify the costs to public funds. In my experience, they perform that task effectively, efficiently and impartially, providing a service as politically impartial civil servants, in line with the civil service code introduced by the previous Administration in January 1996.
Hon. Members will recall that the code was based on the draft proposed by the Treasury Committee. Surely, there can be no complaint between us about the important work of the Government Information and Communications Service.
Since the election, the Government have set a challenging pace in their programme of reform and improvement, and we shall continue to do so. The GICS press and publicity staff have put considerable energy and skill into supporting the Government's programme and, during the past year, they have done so while shouldering the burden of change. The changes are not yet complete, but I should like to take this opportunity to thank the staff for their professionalism and commitment.

Mr. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman will note that I expressed my appreciation of the work done by the civil service part of the Government's press machine and, indeed, of some of the work done by the Government's more political special adviser press officers. However, he must be aware that, on the civil service side of the press machine, there has been considerable anxiety that the pace of change also involved pushing at what had been long understood to be fairly clear boundaries about what constitutes non-partisan behaviour and what is going too far in the direction of commitment to the Government, as opposed to the public administration system as a whole. It would be unreasonable if he did not recognise that there are anxieties that need to be allayed.

Dr. Cunningham: Shortly after Labour came into office, the then head of the home civil service, Sir Robin Butler, commissioned a review into the GICS which was undertaken by a small group chaired by Sir Robin Mountfield, the permanent secretary in the Cabinet Office. It examined what needed to be done to ensure that the GICS was in a position to meet the demands of what is now a 24-hour media world.
The review was prompted by concerns not about the politicisation of the service, but about ensuring that the service had the skills and resources necessary to take it



into the 21st century. I remind the House that the group was headed by Sir Robin Mountfield, the Cabinet Office permanent secretary, not by a politician. Its main recommendations were: to improve co-ordination with and from the centre through a new strategic communications unit; to improve co-ordination within departments so that Ministers, special advisers, press officers and policy civil servants all play their part in the coherent formulation and communication of policy; to bring the practice and procedures of the Government press offices up to the standards of the best, geared to quick response around the clock—sometimes I wish that it could be even quicker; to develop closer and better working relations between policy civil servants and press offices; and, finally and most importantly, to reaffirm that the service would remain politically impartial to sustain its trusted values.
One of the Government's earliest decisions, in July 1997, was to publish the latest version of the rules, the "Guidance on the Work of the Government Information Service". Thus, we again published the conclusions and recommendations. The result of the review was a continuing programme of action to ensure that the Mountfield recommendations are given the priority that they deserve. A progress report on them was placed in the Library of the House last summer and we hope to publish the next progress reports shortly. If any hon. Member wants to complain about the recommendations or their implementation, I invite him or her to talk to me in the Cabinet Office, or write to me, and I shall take the matter up. As I said about abuse of power, we have had no such complaints, suggestions or recommendations for change or improvement from any party in the House.
Our decision to have a strong centre with political drive to ensure a firm political focus to the work of this Administration was a pre-election commitment. We have increased the numbers of special advisers and there are now some 70 full and part-time special advisers employed across Whitehall, but I make no apology for that. Equally, it is important that we keep the number in perspective: it is extremely small compared with the number of permanent civil servants.
We have been open about the number of special advisers and the terms and conditions under which they are appointed. For the first time ever, we published a "Model Contract for Special Advisers", making clear their role and responsibilities.

Mr. Tyrie: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No, not at the moment.
The model contract was promulgated by the Prime Minister and placed in the Library of the House in May 1997. Distinguishing clearly the roles of special advisers and permanent civil servants ensures that there is no misunderstanding about their respective roles. I am aware of no genuine misunderstanding about that. I regularly meet civil servants not only from my Department, the Cabinet Office, but from other Departments; indeed, I regularly meet the civil service unions, as the House would expect of me. No one from the civil service has raised any complaints of that nature with me in the admittedly all-too-brief time in which I have held these responsibilities.
Equally, by acknowledging the role of special advisers in that way, we protect the political neutrality of the permanent civil service. I agree with the right

hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that it is essential that that is done. The only exception to the general rules regarding the advisory role of special advisers applies to the Prime Minister's chief of staff and press secretary—his official spokesman.
As the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) said in an intervention, immediately after the election, the Civil Service Order in Council 1995 was amended to enable up to three posts in the Prime Minister's office to have additional powers, allowing it to have civil servants working for it. Once again, we were entirely open about our intentions. Of those three posts, only two have been taken up. We believe that, to be truly effective, those posts should not be filled by individuals who would be expected to perform a similar role for an Administration of a different political party.
The Prime Minister's chief of staff and the Prime Minister's press secretary—like all other civil servants—are accountable to Ministers, who in turn are accountable to Parliament. What they can and cannot do is set out clearly in their contracts. The Prime Minister's press secretary made public his contract following a request from the Select Committee on Public Administration.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed rightly focused on a freedom of information Act. I share his general objectives in the matter, as do the Government. The Government entirely agree that the public interest is best served by greater access to information. That has been demonstrated many times in what we have already done. I think of the judicial inquiry into BSE, the encouragement of advisory committees to appoint watchdogs and consumer representatives and to publish their agendas and minutes, and the interesting and important development in departmental web sites. I agree that much more can be done in that regard. None the less, all those developments have been going on, and continue to do so.
The Government's major programme of constitutional reform—another objective that we share with the Liberal Democrats—aims to involve people more closely in decisions that affect their lives. That is done through changing not just institutional structures, but the way in which our institutions work. That means greater openness, greater accountability and greater contact with individuals and organisations outside government and Whitehall.
I personally feel very strongly committed to such aims and objectives. A good example of what I am talking about is the discussion forum on modernising government, which the Cabinet Office and No. 10 Downing street have jointly launched on the internet today. People will be able to call up the site, give their views about what they would like, see some of our working documents and comment on them.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed is right to say that the key component of the programme is a freedom of information Act. We believe that such an Act will lead to greater accountability, more involvement of the public in decision making, better decision making across the public sector and, ultimately, better government.
The Government published their proposals in December 1997 in a White Paper, "Your Right To Know". That was a major step towards fulfilling our manifesto commitment to legislate for freedom of


information. I pay tribute to the work done on that by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark).
The Home Office took over responsibility for freedom of information legislation from the Cabinet Office when changes were made to the Government in the summer, in order to enable policy to be developed alongside other constitutional measures, such as human rights and data protection. That has also allowed my Department to concentrate on its new role of supporting the Prime Minister, and the Government as a whole, in driving forward strategic policy formulation and implementation. In addition, a great deal of my Department's work is aimed at producing the White Paper on modernising government and ensuring that that programme is taken forward across the Government.
Following those developments, the Home Office has devoted a great deal of effort to translating the White Paper's proposals into a draft Bill. I can say that with absolute authority because I am a member of the committee that is working to produce that Bill. We plan to publish a draft freedom of information Bill shortly. We then look forward to a thorough and informed debate. Following consultation, the Bill will be introduced as soon as the legislative programme allows. I accept the point by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that, realistically, given the timetable that we face, it is unlikely to be possible to steer the Bill through all stages this Session, even if it were possible to agree on it being carried over to the next Session.
The Select Committee on Public Administration has asked for three months to scrutinise the Bill. The Government want to meet that commitment on behalf of the House. We have also undertaken, quite properly, to provide a period of public consultation. It will be proper consultation, in which the views of respondents will be taken into account. We hope and believe that consultation and scrutiny will lead to a better Bill, resulting in the smoother passage of Bills in general.
The freedom of information Bill will be a highly complex piece of legislation, as I well know, and it is vital for the Act in which it will result to be effective and workable. I know that some people think that we have waited long enough, but surely it is worth taking just a little more time to do all that we can to ensure that we get the legislation right.
The Government have acknowledged the importance of the Government Information and Communications Service to the effective development and implementation of policy. We have reaffirmed the political integrity and impartiality of the service, and we are making progress towards a freedom of information Act that will form just one part of the wholesale modernisation of the government and constitution of this country.
For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the Liberal Democrat motion and support our amendment.

Sir George Young: The official Opposition endorse the criticisms in the Liberal Democrat motion of the Labour party's treatment of the Government Information and Communications Service. I congratulate the right hon. Member for

Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on his perceptive and important speech. Like him, I deplore the obsession with appearance as opposed to substance. I hope that progress can be made with freedom of information legislation, although I must add that I do not think such legislation will solve the problem that the right hon. Gentleman described at the beginning of his speech.
On the subject of freedom of information, I was concerned to receive today, from the Cabinet Office, a reply to a letter that I had written to the Minister on 1 December. Six weeks later, the letter states:
He"—
the Minister—
had hoped to reply to your letter by now and is very sorry he is unable to do so as advice is being sought from the Freedom of Information unit.
I hope that the Government's objective is to accelerate rather than delay the distribution of information to hon. Members.
The Liberal Democrats have identified an important issue, but if I were offered the first Opposition day debate of 1999, with the Government very much on the defensive—with the national health service facing a crisis, the retail trade trying to recover from a difficult Christmas, agriculture on its knees and the Chancellor sticking to a growth forecast that hardly anyone else believes—I am not sure that, given that promising list of targets, my prime suspect would be the Government Information and Communications Service. The Liberal Democrats' choice of subject tells us something about the dilemma that confronts them: they are having to decide, basically, whether they are with the Government or against them.

Mr. Beith: rose—

Sir George Young: Perhaps I will pre-empt the right hon. Gentleman's intervention if I add that the motion is serious, and deserves a better response than the one that we have just heard.

Mr. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman is very generous, but he may have missed the fact that we spent a considerable part of the morning engaging in a major and well-attended debate about the crisis in the health service, initiated by a Liberal Democrat.

Sir George Young: It is true that a debate lasting an hour and a half took place this morning on pay and conditions for NHS nurses, but that is not quite the same as a three-hour debate on an Opposition day.
There are many ways of describing both the worrying changes in the presentation of Government policy that have occurred since 1997, and the shift in the terms of trade between policy maker and policy presenter. One of the best ways of explaining the change is, perhaps, to refer to a chart that appeared in a Sunday newspaper 10 days ago. On one side of the chart—in favour of a proposition—were pictured seven Cabinet Ministers, with their individual views; on the other side—against the proposition—were seven other Cabinet Ministers, with their views. At the bottom of the page were six more, described as maintaining a discreet pager silence.
What was the important issue? Was it early entry into the euro, increasing the top rate of tax, giving nurses the full amount recommended by the pay review body,


reforming the House of Lords? No; the issue was whether Mr. Charles Whelan, a junior Treasury official, should be sacked. That that should have become the currency of serious political debate is a direct consequence of the style of news management that we now have, and of the status given by the present Government to those who are believed to have particular presentational skills. The fact that Charlie Whelan's resignation overshadowed the launch of the first European single currency since the Romans tells us that we have a Government whose priorities are distorted—they are preoccupied with packaging as opposed to content.
It is not just Liberal Democrats and Conservatives who find that offensive. A growing number of Labour Members are reacting against the power that the Government have given to the spin doctors. Two of the bolder ones raised the matter on a point of order on Monday on the first day back after the Christmas recess.
We have become so accustomed to the partisan briefings of the Chancellor's former press secretary that it is necessary to be reminded of the ground rules—the official guidance on the work of the Government Information and Communications Service, which was circulated by the Cabinet Office in July 1997. Paragraph 2 tells us that the activities of the service
should be objective and explanatory, not tendentious or polemical.
It goes on to say that they
should not be, or be liable to misrepresentation as being, Party political.
The guidance goes on to say that the resources of the Government information service
may not be used to support publicity for Party political purposes",
and that
personalisation of issues or personal image-making should be avoided".

Dr. Jack Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman was just complaining about the devotion of pages of the national newspapers to matters of trivia, yet here he is devoting the opening part of his speech to the same trivia. It is obvious, as the Prime Minister and I, and others, have made clear, that the Government would much prefer such stuff not to be in the national newspapers, but the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we are in charge of their editorial policy as well, is he?

Sir George Young: The right hon. Gentleman misses the point. We have a new Administration who are obsessed with presentation. They have changed the terms of trade and attach almost as much importance to those with presentational skills as to those who have the ability to formulate policy. They are paying the price for that because the press are diverting attention to those who carry the message and not focusing on the substance. Frankly, the Government have no one else to blame for the problems over the past three weeks but themselves.
I have referred to the new rules that were brought in by the Government. As I looked through the mountain of press cuttings that have been kindly supplied by the Library, I was struck by the number of commentators—not politicians—who believe that, to put it kindly, the rules have been stretched to breaking point and that injury is being done both to our tradition of a professional and impartial civil service and to the concept of not using taxpayers' funds for party political purposes.
To understand what has happened, first one must look at the key position of Alastair Campbell. It is no secret that he was closely associated with the presentation of Labour's policy in opposition. He is personally deeply committed to the Prime Minister and to the Labour party. He is now technically a special adviser—a ministerial appointment—and not a civil servant. His importance is due to the fact that, both in opposition and in government, the Prime Minister places a premium on presentation. That is why, in last weekend's edition of The Sunday Times, the former director of information at the Department of Health said:
his power over the commanding heights of Government makes Alastair effectively deputy prime minister. Sorry, Mr. Prescott.
That person held that post until January 1.
Not only can Mr. Campbell now get involved in party political controversy, but, by an amendment to the Civil Service Order in Council 1995, he was given executive power and instructs civil servants. However, the civil servants are, of course, bound by the guidance from which I have quoted. A political animal giving leadership to a non-political service inevitably gives rise to tension.
As we have heard, within months, seven chief press officers left their post—I think that it has now risen to 10—causing much concern in the civil service and to the then head of the civil service, Sir Robin Butler. Although the Mountfield report has promised to maintain a politically impartial Government information service, the key role given to Alastair Campbell and the introduction of special advisers into the new strategic communications unit that co-ordinates presentation of Government policy has inevitably led to further accusations of the politicisation of the information service and to tension within Whitehall. However, that is not the only tension in the system.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir George Young: I will make the point and then I will give way.
To understand the fuller picture and the other tensions that culminated in Charlie Whelan's resignation, one needs to know a little about today's Labour party. Perhaps the easiest and shortest way of doing that is by referring to the African tribal system and to the Tutsi and the Hutu. There may be some important philosophical differences dividing those two tribes, but all we really need to know is that they do not like each other.
Similarly, there are tribes within the Government. However, the divisions within new Labour have less to do with policy and more to do with past betrayals, failed power struggles, opportunistic alliances and disappointed personal ambitions. In other words, as we were reminded over the weekend, they do not like each other.
To counterbalance the key role that Alastair Campbell had at No. 10 Downing street, Charlie Whelan was brought in by the Chancellor at No. 11. Therefore, far from having a unified service giving a coherent Government message, the introduction of politically committed press officers accentuated and widened the fault-line running down the middle of the Government.
The new press officers are often more concerned with the standing of their Ministers in the popularity stakes


than in the presentation of their Department's policy. As The Daily Telegraph rather unkindly said, on 6 January, of Charlie Whelan:
I doubt if he knows the difference between M1, M2 and the M25.
The future of those press officers depends on patronage from their Minister and the success of that Minister's political future. That relationship creates a crucial distinction between the role of those officers and the previous practice of the civil service, and explains part of the reasons for the difficulties in which the Government found themselves over the Christmas recess.

Dr. Jack Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman has made that allegation more than once, but has not produced a single shred of evidence to substantiate it. He has read the allegation in a newspaper and is simply repeating it in the House. He cannot substantiate it.

Sir George Young: I shall make the point by referring to Romola Christopherson's remarks in The Sunday Times—[Interruption.] I hope that Labour Members will not denigrate a civil servant who has served the Labour party well for the past 18 months. She said:
But in the Treasury, Mr. Whelan was spinning out of control. Knocking chunks off departments and Ministers, working Mr. Brown up and others over, he raised hackles and pints.
Indeed, the more one reads about Mr. Whelan, the odder it seems that he was ever allowed in the Treasury in the first place.
The tensions that I have mentioned have, in recent weeks, led to much distress for the Government, over which I shed few tears. However, there have been some worrying developments, both for civil servants and for news management. I think that the House needs to be concerned with those developments.
Jill Rutter, a former head of the Treasury press office, made the point well at a meeting of the Social Market Foundation. She said:
Once the news is out—in a speech or an official release—it is a free good. But unreleased information is a valuable commodity. The genius of the government's news managers is to recognise and exploit that fact and use it to create a long-term dependence relationship.
She went on to warn that we could be turning the Government information service into a
powerful machine to secure the permanent advantages of incumbency.

Mr. Bercow: While my right hon. Friend is dealing with that important point, will he recall that the current Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in his earlier capacity as Minister for School Standards, shamefully sought to bully a career information officer, Mr. Jonathan Haslam, into putting more political spin into a press release on education? When Mr. Haslam refused to comply with the instruction, the right hon. Gentleman reported him to the permanent secretary. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Haslam left the public service. Is that not a shameful state of affairs?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend refers to the incident in which the official, who left his post shortly

after the incident occurred, was said to have insisted that it was a party political matter with which civil servants should not have become involved. It is a good example of some of the changes that have occurred.
I should say, as an aside, that the Labour party's disciplined and centralised approach to policy announcements is in marked contrast to the Liberal Democrats's approach. The Liberal Democrats' more devolved and relaxed style permits a more flexible approach to policy, readily adaptable to an urban or a rural environment. If I may say so, I prefer the third way that has been adopted by the Conservative party.
Jill Rutter's warning, which I have quoted, should concern all hon. Members. The use of the ownership of a valuable commodity to secure favourable coverage in the press—and, conversely, withholding information, which is the raw material of a journalist, from those who are less co-operative—is a dangerous development. That concern was shared by the Select Committee on Public Administration. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) on that Select Committee. Although a number of amendments put forward by Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were voted down by the Labour majority, many of the recommendations that were carried were aimed at clarifying the distinction between effective presentation of Government policy and party political advocacy.
Another worrying development was the production last July of the Government's annual report. All references to bad news were airbrushed out and it contained a number of political aspirations better located in an election manifesto.
We have also seen a tendency to recycle information. We all approve of the proposition that 65 per cent. of new houses should be built on recycled land, but we now have a policy that 65 per cent. of all press notices should be recycled news. On Monday, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced that £55 million was to be spent on teaching more maths. The press release was headlined, "Times tables key in £55 million numeracy drive". The money turned out to be a close relation of the £60 million announced for the same purpose back on 8 July under the heading, "£60 million boost makes maths count". Sadly, £5 million had been lost on the journey.
The Government amendment shows no recognition of the important issues raised in the debate and by serious political commentators on the civil service. The Minister's speech also lacked any recognition of those points. The more that one reads about the Government, the more that one asks how collective government can work with such a poisonous cocktail of warring personalities jockeying for position under the Prime Minister. The Government's reaction to the crisis has been a counter-offensive featuring speeches. The Chancellor's keynote speech on Monday was described by The Guardian yesterday as "humourless, repetitive and earnest" and its message as
nothing if not familiar in its content and its now unchallengeable banality.
Hon. Members on both sides want a more positive response. In the words of The Scotsman on 5 January:
It is time for Mr. Blair to put this wretched period behind him and replace the fetish for style with some radical substance.
That is a difficult challenge for a Government whose programme, lacking a theme or any philosophical continuity, is merely a rag-bag of items derived from focus groups.
What is happening is bad not just for the Government, but for the House of Commons and for democracy. Despite regular warnings from Madam Speaker, many Government announcements are so comprehensively trailed that telling Parliament is an afterthought. Journalists get more information earlier than Parliament does. Proper scrutiny is becoming more difficult. That adds to the sidelining of Parliament, something that concerns hon. Members on both sides.

Mr. Fraser Kemp: The right hon. Gentleman seeks objectivity from Prime Minister's press secretaries. Does he believe that the comments of Sir Bernard Ingham, a previous Prime Minister's press secretary who referred to John Biffen as "semi-detached" and Francis Pym as "Mona Lott", were conducive to good Cabinet government?

Sir George Young: Sir Bernard Ingham is well able to defend himself. He was a civil servant and rigidly defined his role as never crossing the boundary between the civil service and party politics. Alastair Campbell is not a civil servant; he is a special adviser. That is the key difference.

Dr. Jack Cunningham: rose—

Sir George Young: I am not giving way. I have given way once. I have given way lots of times.

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Sir George Young: No, I am not giving way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. You all have to give way to me. It is clear that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) is not giving way.

Sir George Young: A number of hon. Members want to speak and I have given way several times.
Alastair Campbell is a special adviser. Despite many warnings from Madam Speaker, the Government have adopted a dismissive approach to the rights of Parliament. In the words of The Times:
This Government has played fast and loose with the principle of Parliamentary scrutiny and thus the right of the people's elected representatives to check the powerful, in an effort to shape the media agenda.
The chickens are coming home to roost. I can do no better than end with a perceptive quotation made by Matthew Parris six months ago:
This world and these men"—
he was referring to the spin doctors—
will be the downfall of Mr. Blair. These are not the fire-fighters, they are the fire and they will burn him.

Dr. David Clark: I very much welcome this debate, and I am delighted that the Liberal Democrats have chosen this issue for discussion this afternoon. I only regret that we have not touched on the big questions that are posed by information not only to our democracy, but to our commerce and industry. I regret

that the Liberal Democrats have emphasised the minutiae and left the big picture. I would like to develop some of the big ideas as well.
It seemed to me that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the official Opposition spokesman, built his speech on fanciful notions and false presumptions, and I will pick up on some of those points as I go along.
It is clear to me that information is power. Perhaps it is because I am old Labour, but I can recollect all the trade union banners of old which showed that the point that education and information are power was recognised by those pioneers. It is as true today as it was then. Information poses a challenge to us as members of the legislature in terms of how we access power. I shall return to this matter in discussing the White Paper on the right to know and the freedom of information Bill. Information is critical to the struggle that goes on under all Administrations between the legislature and the Executive, and that is right and healthy.
The other aspect of the debate is the relationship between the Government and the citizen. With many more outlets to dispense and disseminate information, it is critical that the citizen have access to information. I would argue, and the Government recognise, that information is a critical part of the democratic process. It should not be a bolt-on aspect, but an intrinsic part of the democratic process. The Labour party recognised that in opposition, and we tried to put it in practice from day one in government. It is ironic that information technology allows an increasing amount of information to be disseminated, and it is through IT that we need to tackle the matter.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the special Order in Council concerning Alastair Campbell, and the role of the Government at that time. We took the decision for the very reason that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire outlined when he cited Sir Bernard Ingham as an independent career civil servant. He was a career civil servant, but nobody could challenge his instinctive feel for what the then Prime Minister was thinking. He pulled no punches. I do not grumble about that—that is the job of a good press officer to the Prime Minister.
With that in mind, we felt it important that, to ensure the political integrity and neutrality of the career civil servant, we should have the Order in Council, and that we should make this special exception for Alastair Campbell—as the Prime Minister's press officer—to be a civil servant as a special adviser. He is a civil servant, but he is not a career civil servant. We felt that that was the best and most transparent approach.

Mr. Tyrie: Does not the right hon. Gentleman grasp that there is a fundamental difference between the two cases? Sir Bernard Ingham never transgressed into party politics. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is important that Labour Members read the evidence. He was a former Labour supporter—a Labour candidate, as it happens.
The fundamental difference is that Alastair Campbell attends Labour party conferences. Sir Bernard Ingham never attended Conservative party conferences. The Prime Minister himself said that his press secretary does a good job of attacking the Conservative party. The attribution of


such remarks to Sir Bernard Ingham would be absurd. There is thus a fundamental difference between the two cases.

Dr. Clark: There is indeed a fundamental difference. It is that we in government made it quite clear where Alastair Campbell stood and where he came from. There is no misunderstanding. To try to spin the argument that Sir Bernard Ingham did not transgress into party politics is futile and laughable.
We felt that it was right to abandon the charade, which is what we did. Even then, we took the matter forward. We set up the Mountfield committee. May I say as an aside how delighted I was to see Robin Mountfield get the KCB in the new year's honours? It was well deserved. The committee produced proposals to ensure the political integrity of the Government Information and Communications Service. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, made clear, that report is available in the Library of the House. The monitoring report is also available in the Library and I urge hon. Members to look at them both.
We are at a stage in our history when the concept of representative democracy is being debated and challenged, and must be changed. The way that we use information is a critical aspect of that. I would argue that the freedom of information legislation is crucial.
I empathise with a great deal of the motion moved by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on freedom of information. I acknowledge, and am grateful for, the support that I received from those on the Liberal Benches in our campaign for that.
There is agreement across the House on the matter. I was disappointed that it was not in the Queen's Speech, but I was reassured this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Minister telling us that good progress was being made on the draft Bill. Even if he were present—I understand why he is not—he could not give a commitment that it would be in next year's Queen's Speech, but from what he said, it would be amazing and the House would be astounded if that Bill did not appear then. That is extremely encouraging.
Let us be bold when we introduce the Bill. Something struck me over the Christmas recess as I watched the television reports about the release of Government records under the 30-year rule. We heard Lord Callaghan discussing the Race Relations Act 1968. He said that one of the mistakes that he made when that legislation was enacted was to listen too attentively to soundings and views from the Police Federation about excluding the police.
I do not want to do anything, and the Government should not do anything, that inhibits the catching of criminals and the pursuing of prosecutions. Nobody wants that. However, we must not repeat the mistake with freedom of information that we made with the Race Relations Act.

Mr. Baker: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, under freedom of information legislation, the security services should be subject to the test of substantial harm, rather than being excluded entirely?

Dr. Clark: I should prefer to wait and see the draft Bill. We have rehearsed all the arguments in the past.
We do not have to wait for a freedom of information Act before we make more information freely available. That was a message that I kept hammering home to my former Cabinet colleagues, and I was encouraged by their response. Under this Government, much more information has been made available to citizens and to Members of Parliament. We have seen the Government moving slowly into the IT age. We have seen also increasing use being made of the internet by government and by Members. That must be good. A good example of use of the internet and disseminating Government information arose from the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the Yemen issue on Monday. An Opposition Member said that travel agents and people travelling abroad often use the internet to obtain the latest Foreign Office advice on whether it is safe to go abroad. That is a good use of Government information.
There is, however, a down side. I offer this message to civil servants: it is critical that Government websites be kept up to date. I was appalled at times by the Cabinet website when I was in charge of it. As a result, we appointed a webmaster to ensure that the websites were up to date; otherwise, everything depended on a civil servant having a quiet Friday afternoon, when it might be raining, to update a website. That is not good enough.
As soon as White Papers are published, we have seen the Government putting the information on the internet. That is the right way forward. I was amused when we were wrestling with the problem of the millennium bug, way back 15 months ago. I had written to all Government Departments asking about their plans. I had decided that I would publish those detailed plans as we received them and make them available on the internet. I called in a number of journalists to brief them. They were suspicious, as always. In effect, they said, "Well, you are just telling us this, you are just telling us that."
I said, "I will give you the whole lot." I gave them 1,200 pages each on which were set out the plans. They wrote nothing about the millennium bug. Certainly there was no criticism. There is a message and a moral in that. We have a culture of secrecy and, because of that culture, people become far too suspicious. They have a bit of information and therefore, as Jill Rutter says, they feel that there are nine tenths or eight ninths of it still under the water, and they want to get hold of it. If we are co-operative in releasing information, we shall be able to communicate much better with the citizens of this country.
An important example of providing information is trying to find new ways of extending democracy. I think especially of the people's panel, which I considered to be an underrated experiment in government. There would be a legitimate complaint against us if we did not publish all the information that the panel produces. If we failed to do so, the information would remain the preserve of the Government, and that would not be healthy. That is why we took the decision to publish all the information produced by the people's panel.
I shall bring my remarks to an end by expressing a few thoughts about the White Paper and making a few points about background information. There is much raw material or information held by government and other public bodies that is kept secret unnecessarily. It is incumbent on Governments to produce that raw information. It may sometimes be produced after the decision has been made but it is still useful. I was pleased


that, a few weeks after we produced the White Paper, we produced also, for the first time, all the background information and raw data upon which the White Paper had been constructed. There should be much more of that sort of activity.
To the Government's credit, there was a move to have a national statistical service. That was a step in the right direction, which removed from the political arena the debate, discussions and slanging matches that went on in the past.
I wonder whether the Government could be a little more proactive in the release of Government statistics. Often, statistics get treated, and they are 12 months out of date. It would be helpful to our country, our industry, our commerce and our democracy if statistics were available in raw fashion much sooner. While the Government's statisticians are still working on the data, independent and business statisticians could also be using them to the advantage of the country.
We are moving not only into a new millennium, but into a new age. We are moving from the age of the industrial society towards a new information society. That gives all sorts of opportunities for more information to be made available to citizens. It will allow us to rebuild the relationship with our citizens. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, debating the Queen's Speech in November, said that Britain had a unique opportunity to take advantage of the English language, the foremost spoken language in the world.
We shall go through many upheavals as we move into a new society, and access to information is critical. Just to show how on-message I am, let me once again quote the Prime Minister who, in arguing for a freedom of information Bill, said:
It will signal a new relationship between government and people: a relationship which sees the public as legitimate stakeholders in the running of the country and sees election to serve the public as being given on trust.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I served on the Select Committee that considered freedom of information before the proposals were produced. We travelled around the world, to Canada and Sweden, which have had freedom of information for many years. Everywhere we went, the proposals were given accolades as being far reaching and advanced. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the Bill will come out in the form it would have taken when he was in charge of it, or will it be watered down?

Dr. Clark: I hope that the Bill will not be watered down. I have already urged my right hon. and hon. Friends to be bold. I accept the sentiment behind what my hon. Friend has said in one sense: the information age offers a great many challenges, but it offers many opportunities too. I believe that, if we do the right thing, we can move from being one of the most secretive societies in the western world to being one of the most open. If we do, we shall re-engage with our citizens and we shall help commerce and industry. I passionately believe that we shall also start to rebuild trust in our democratic process.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I shall concentrate on only one aspect of this wide-ranging debate. Labour's changes, although they appear to be incremental, are in

fact fundamentally altering the relationship between the civil service and politicians. That process has been occurring for a long time, but has accelerated during the past 18 months. I can illustrate that point with figures for the large number of outside advisers appointed to Whitehall. More than 60 were appointed immediately after the election, and now the number is more than 80. There are about 20 at 10 Downing street at a cost of more than £1 million a year.
A suitable figure for comparison is the number of advisers appointed under Margaret Thatcher's Government on the last occasion on which there was a change of Administration. That Government appointed seven advisers, compared with 60 in 1998. There is always a ratchet effect: the Government began with 60 and are up to 80 after just 18 months; the previous Government's number rose from seven to 35 over 18 years.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Perhaps it would serve the hon. Gentleman's purpose if he got his facts right. It is not 80, but 70, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office stated earlier.

Mr. Tyrie: I will check that figure, but, when I added them up, I got well above 70. If the hon. Gentleman is correct, 60 to 70 is an increase of 10, which is a sharp increase in 18 months—between 15 and 17 per cent.
The doubling since the election represents a fundamental shift in the way in which Whitehall operates. If those advisers are in key positions close to Ministers, it means that the way in which decisions are taken, and the scope for officials to get advice to Ministers, has been altered. The balance of power in Whitehall Departments has altered, and that should not be underestimated.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office made a chilling comparison between the numbers of civil servants and of advisers, as though there should be some sort of rough balance between them, or the numbers could be considered comparable. The key figure is how many people a Minister has in his close entourage. Are we developing a French-style cabinet system?
The Labour Government have also altered the way in which we are governed by introducing Orders in Council to enable them to appoint outsiders to key posts hitherto held by civil servants. The Prime Minister's principal private secretary, Jonathan Powell, is one, although he travels under the title of chief of staff. Alastair Campbell, the chief press secretary, is another.
I do not object in principle to the introduction of all those outsiders into Whitehall—it may be a good thing and perhaps Whitehall needs them—but 1 object to the impression being given that nothing has changed and that we are carrying on just as before. That is complete nonsense, because something fundamental is happening.
With the Government's emphasis on media handling ahead of policy, it is hardly surprising that the Government Information and Communications Service is one of the areas in which those effects have been felt most. In several cases, Labour advisers were brought in explicitly to do press jobs, which were previously carried out by line civil servants; Alastair Campbell is an example. In other cases, that happens unofficially; Charlie Whelan is a case in point and, of course, Jill Rutter had to leave because she apparently felt that her position in the Treasury was untenable—she has gone to the


private sector. In other cases, the selection procedure for replacing press officers seems too often to throw up Labour sympathisers who were working in the media beforehand.
Little public attention has been brought to bear on the way in which Whitehall is changing because it is not a matter in which the public are particularly interested. They have focused on the froth and the battles between senior Labour Ministers, which led to the resignation of one Minister, who is leaving the Chamber as I speak.
Because of the changes in the GCIS, which people I knew who worked there discussed with me, I decided to raise the issue in the Select Committee on Public Administration, on which I served. In autumn 1997, I asked whether we could launch an inquiry into the information service and subsequently, in the following spring, wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Select Committee. I was delighted when the Committee went ahead with that inquiry. It unearthed several things that just will not do.
First, it must be wrong for anyone whose salary is paid by the taxpayer to engage explicitly in party political activities. Alastair Campbell is paid more than £90,000 a year—perhaps the Minister will give me the exact figure—from the Exchequer. He should not be spending his time attacking the Conservative party, but that is exactly what the Prime Minister brazenly said at the Dispatch Box that he is doing and that it is his job to do.
When I asked the Cabinet Secretary when he came before the Select Committee if he agreed that that was wrong, he wriggled a little. Amusingly, when I pressed him a little more, he took up the customary, but painful, position that most senior officials take on such occasions and sat on the fence. In his evidence, he ended up distinguishing between attacking the Opposition, which was almost okay, and attacking them with bricks and bottles, which he felt was not.
Alastair Campbell's contract clearly states that he should not take part in national political activity. Schedule 1, part 2 of his contract says:
Special advisers must not take part in national political activities
nor must they
engage in national political controversy.
However, Sir Richard Wilson, the Cabinet Secretary, was unable to tell the Select Committee whether what the Prime Minister described as attacking the Conservative party constituted party political activity. I should have thought that it was pretty clear. In their evidence, both he and Alastair Campbell suggested that acting as a spokesman at the Labour party conference did not constitute party political activity or being a spokesman for the Labour party. That is merely Sir Humphrey double-speak.
I readily acknowledge that there has been some awkwardness about some of the activities that special advisers have been asked to undertake, under both Conservative and Labour Administrations, because they are funded by the taxpayer but are involved in activities that may be close to the line. However, Labour's decision to politicise Whitehall and to use taxpayers' funds for party political purposes on a large scale takes us down a

road that will change the style of our government. It will take us away from a politically neutral civil service, towards an American system of government.
A second issue is that of enforceability of contracts. Special advisers who worked under the previous Government were sometimes at the edges of what might be considered acceptable, but in my experience that was all the subject of a typically British compromise and there were negotiations over many of the issues. As far as I know, the issue of whether any adviser came close to breaching his contract never arose. No adviser ever got to the point at which his permanent secretary felt the need to speak to him. Plainly, Labour's special advisers are engaging in national party political activity on a pretty big scale. Many people know that—everyone in the Press Gallery, for example—and they know that, in doing so, they are clearly in breach of their contracts.

Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman asks why, under the previous Government, there was no threat of a special adviser being removed because of breach of contract. Is that not because, under that Government, no one knew the terms of reference for such advisers? It is only since we established a model contract for them that everyone has understood their role.

Mr. Tyrie: Is the Minister suggesting that Labour thought that special advisers were appointed exclusively to do party political work paid for by the taxpayer and that the incoming Government were shocked to discover when they brought in their own advisers that there was some limit to what they could do? Of course he is not. The Labour party knew very well that special advisers should not engage in party political activity. If they had been doing so, permanent secretaries would have done something about it.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: rose—

Mr. Tyrie: I should like to make some progress before giving way, although I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is also a member of the Public Administration Committee.
Who will enforce those contracts? When I asked the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, who was responsible for enforcing a contract that had clearly been breached, he could not offer me any comfort and nor could his predecessor, Sir Robin Butler, to whom I had put the same question. It seems that it is the job of the permanent secretary in a Department to spot a breach, but he has no power to enforce the contract. Although the special adviser's contract is with the departmental head, the permanent secretary cannot do anything about it. He cannot sack an adviser, because he did not appoint him or her; the adviser is appointed by his Secretary of State. We are in the crazy position—something has to be done about this—where special advisers can do no more than breach their contracts, but the permanent secretary can merely have a word about it with his Minister and, perhaps, the Cabinet Secretary and there the matter has to end.

Mr. Campbell: If I remember correctly, the permanent secretary's evidence to the Committee was that he had no problem with Alastair Campbell and that he had not breached the rules. I think that the hon. Gentleman was there when that was said.

Mr. Tyrie: I was certainly there. It is unimaginable that the Cabinet Secretary would have said that there had been


a clear breach of rules but that we should not worry because he was not going to do anything about it. An elementary knowledge of these things—the hon. Gentleman heard me say this earlier—shows that the first place that a Cabinet Secretary will put himself when he is under pressure is on the fence. If one that looks at his evidence, one sees that that is exactly where he was sitting.
Several straightforward things can and should be done to stop this attack—whether it is intended or unintended is irrelevant—on Whitehall impartiality, and put matters back on a sustainable basis. First, people such as Alastair Campbell who are expected to do overtly party political work should be paid from party political funds. Their salaries should not be paid by taxpayers. It is not acceptable to expect taxpayers to fund Alastair Campbell's attacks on the Conservative party. That is an unacceptable abuse of Government money. Likewise, the strategic communications unit should probably be paid for from party funds.
Secondly, I do not believe that there should be any further changes to the civil service Orders in Council to give special advisers the authority to manage other civil servants. That is the key aspect of the changes. All civil servants, without exception, should be appointed in the normal way on the basis of fair and open competition. Thirdly, permanent secretaries should be made explicitly responsible for enforcement of special advisers' compliance with their contracts.
Those are sensible suggestions, three of which were tabled as amendments to the Select Committee report, to which, in the end, I had to write a minority report. I regret that, and the fact that a partisan element crept into the Committee's work. I strongly support the work of Select Committees in principle. I do not believe that my suggestions, which constituted three of the four amendments that I tabled, are over the top, or that they are partisan. They would help to preserve the impartiality of the civil service and reassure taxpayers that their money is not misappropriated for party political use.
We are at the first stage of a trip towards the Americanisation of politics, with excessive attention to media handling, big increases in the number of special advisers and a presidential style emanating in so many ways from No. 10. If the House wants to do something about it, we must press the Government to put in place some of the sensible proposals that I have outlined.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: In a way, I am grateful to the Liberals for raising these issues, but the material that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) produced in support of his case was pretty thin. It is not unfair to say that, on the Richter scale of saturated fireworks, it was less a damp squib than a soggy sparkler. He constantly referred to newspaper articles written over the past 12 months, which does not in itself mean that he has a case. If the case were to stand up, it should have dealt with subversion of the orthodoxies of how we run government by excessive use of spin doctoring, excessive concentration on presentation and so forth.
The same criticism applies to the speech of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). Hiding behind the skirts of Romola Christopherson does

him no credit. Her article in The Sunday Times was excellently written. There is no questioning her status as the recently retired doyenne of her profession as a career information civil servant in the Government Information and Communications Service. She showed the undoubted tensions in the service between the old ways of doing things and the new ways brought in by Labour, but the article did not amount to a devastating attack on what Labour are doing; I found it enjoyable reading. It did not describe Alastair Campbell as new Labour's version of Joseph Goebbels or say that we were about to embark on a slippery slope that would lead to the total subversion of normal democratic government. It was simply that she had one way of doing things, which she did brilliantly throughout her career, and that Alastair Campbell does things entirely differently, and is doing them brilliantly in his way.

Sir George Young: I wonder whether that is a fair summary of what Romola Christopherson said. She actually said:
So the government sidelines parliament and is heavily into focus groups, road shows, citizens' juries, people's panels…Such forms of popular involvement can complement representative democracy but should surely not replace it.
That is a more substantive attack than the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Mr. Morgan: If Romola Christopherson had said that the Government had subverted representative democracy, the right hon. Gentleman would have a case, although he would still be hiding behind her skirts. She also said:
So far, so not at all bad".
He should be more balanced in his quotes from Romola Christopherson. I assure him that he will find the quote at the end of the article.
We should concentrate on freedom of information, a subject that the Liberals attempted to weave into the issue of the Government Information and Communications Service. We are at the waiting game stage. We have not seen the draft Bill, but we did a leak, if it was one, in The Times yesterday. Under the headline "Straw to weaken code on freedom", there is a reference to what the Government's approach will be. If it is true, I must express my concern about it.
Will the substantial harm test disappear and be replaced by an across-the-board harm test? "Substantial" is a word with a considerable history in civil service memos—a wonderful British civil service word. In this context, it has a much more important meaning. There is a huge difference between denying information to the public on the basis of its release doing any harm and being able to deny its release only on the basis that it will do substantial harm to the state and its interests as listed in the White Paper. If "substantial" disappears from the draft Bill, it is likely to constitute a substantial watering down of the principles in the White Paper published by the Government, with the Prime Minister's name in the forward. That White Paper was a result of the excellent work of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Clark), who was then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancashire, with powerful support from the Lord Chancellor.
The replacement of the substantial harm test with the much easier harm test would be serious, although I understand that the Government will try to compensate


for it in other aspects of the methodology of the Bill. It would enable the Government to deny information on a wider scale. The article in The Times yesterday alleged that the Government were considering codes, which would be different for each matter, on national security; law enforcement; personal privacy; commercial confidentiality; the safety of the individual, the public and the environment; information supplied in confidence; and official advice to Ministers. There were to be eight or nine categories, each with a separate code.
The problem with that is that, when the Government came into power in May 1997, they decided not to go for a freedom of information Act in their first 18 months. I think that I am right in saying that one reason for doing that was that they did not want merely to transfer into statute the non-statutory code on access to official information introduced by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).
It is no criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that it is fair to say that that non-statutory code has been a failure. It has simply not engaged the general public's attention. They simply do not apply for information, because it is only a non-statutory code. Moreover, on the rare occasions when members of the public do ask for information, Departments do not take their requests seriously.
The proof of that is in a press notice issued by the ombudsman, who enforces the code, because he can construe refusal to supply information as maladministration. On 10 December 1998, in his official press release on the latest annual report, he said:
Too often, departments quote exemptions in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information…rather than follow the spirit of the Code and give as much information as they are able.
In the four years of the existence of the non-statutory code on access to Government information, Whitehall is just as secretive as it was before. Its culture has not been changed. Nor has the culture of the citizenry been changed to expect, as happens in Sweden and Canada, to be able to obtain information from the Government unless national security or a similar interest is at stake.
In order to change the culture of Whitehall and the expectations of the citizenry, Labour said that it would introduce an Act of Parliament to enshrine freedom of information in law rather than in a non-statutory code. We sought to change the culture and the expectations on both sides, empowering the citizenry, which was all very laudable.
Labour then said that it would not merely transfer into statute the non-statutory code, but that it wanted to go much further. The problem is that, after two years of going around the houses and responsibility having been transferred to the Home Office, it appears that, if the leak is accurate, we will have a Bill that is almost identical to the one that we would have had had we legislated in June 1997, simply by putting the non-statutory code on access to Government information on a statutory basis. If that is the case, we might as well have done it in year one anyway.
If what is presupposed in the leak in The Times yesterday happens, we will have gone around in a circle. I hope that I am wrong, but, if I am right, and if the Bill emerges in a couple of weeks' time in the form predicted

in The Times yesterday, based on pretty careful information supplied from some Department or other, or some spin doctor, there will be a great battle over the word "substantial" and whether it can be reinserted in the Bill.
There is a great story about the word "substantial" in south Wales. We in Wales are notorious for giving people nicknames. A manager of a tinplate works in Llanelli who came from England and had been to public school in Oxford was warned that he would probably be given a nickname, so he called in the work force and said, "Look, chaps, I am new to the area and I know that you have a great reputation for giving people nicknames. I am English and you are Welsh, so you will probably give me a nickname. I don't object to that, but I don't want one of those Mickey Mouse names. I want you to call me something substantial." From then on, he was known as Dai Substantial.
I hope that, when the Bill is published, we will not have a battle royal over the word "substantial". We want a freedom of information Bill based on the White Paper published by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, not on the non-statutory code bequeathed to us by the Conservative Government.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: It is a pleasure to participate, I hope briefly, in this afternoon's debate, especially in view of the pertinent points made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I also listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said about freedom of information, and to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark).
I reserve my position on freedom of information until I see what the Government publish. There is undoubtedly a need for greater access to information in Britain. Having practised at the Bar, and having frequently encountered problems in obtaining the necessary information for Government work, and on the whole question of public interest immunity, I have not the slightest doubt that successive Governments have been getting themselves into a complete twist on the issue and, as a result, have been holding back on completely innocuous information as part of a knee-jerk reaction of secrecy which we would do well to break down during the coming years. I shall therefore look at the legislation with considerable interest as and when it comes forward.
The question which interested me particularly this afternoon was the way in which the Government have been manipulating or handling information on a daily basis since they took office. I would be the first to accept that all Governments throughout history have manipulated information for their own benefit. It is not something that started in May 1997. Previous Governments, including Conservative Governments, have put the best gloss on factual material in their possession and on their presentation of matters. That is one of the things that politics is all about.
We cannot get away from the fact that there has been a qualitative and quantitative shift since the Government took office in the way in which such information has been handled. That is a feature of the way in which government has been conducted in Britain and it differentiates us from many other democracies, quite apart from those countries which do not enjoy democratic government.
Over the years, the civil service's reputation for impartiality, and the way in which the Government information service has operated, has tended to mean that people have at least felt that they could rely on the factual material being presented to them, and on the fact that there was a clear separation between party political spin and Government activity.
It may well be that that was simply one of the handicaps of Government, rather like the handicap of a prosecutor in court when he has to abide by rules which are more difficult and severe than those of his opponents in terms of ensuring that he does not mislead, and of the way in which material is handled. It is that which the Government have set out to circumvent.
Having spent part of Christmas reading Mr. Philip Gould's autobiography of his long years advising the Labour Government—a revealing and remarkable work—I dare say that, if a political party starts out on the principle that most of the things in which it believes do not appear to be shared by the electorate, and then sets out on a difficult 10-year process of adapting its beliefs to those of the people whom it is trying to convince, it is hardly surprising that, as a result of that process, it ends up with an extremely slick public presentation machine which, in terms of securing electoral advantage, has proved itself to be superb.
The question is whether one is then entitled to translate that into the way in which one operates in government. It is that issue which the Minister must address carefully. There is overwhelming evidence that the Government have simply taken on all the spin doctoring techniques that they had in opposition, which may well have been legitimate there, and treated them as a perfectly legitimate field of operation once in office.
I happen to believe that that is not right. It is all very well to be told that previous Prime Ministers may have had press officers who acted in the same way, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) pointed out, the sheer number of political advisers, and the way in which we have seen them operate during past months, suggests two principal things—first, that the Government are willing to break down the notion of collective responsibility when it comes to the way in which individual advisers set off their political champions, one against the other, and secondly, that, in the area of manipulation, the idea of objective truth reliant solely upon factual information has been jettisoned. That matters to me as an Opposition Member because I do not much like what I see, but it goes beyond merely the Opposition having a grouse about the way in which the Government have decided to conduct their information service.
For example, shortly before Christmas, the Government set out on a foreign policy initiative involving the use of force against Iraq. It enjoyed cross-party support—I certainly supported it. The Government information service produced a number of documents. When people wrote to me expressing disquiet about, for example, whether the targeting of military bases in Iraq was producing results, I sent to them copies of the product produced by the Government information service. I was quite happy to rely on that as being factually objective and true in so far as the intelligence information that backed it up might be. Therefore, I was intrigued to note the number of people who replied to me expressing disbelief at the material that I received on the grounds that they had

ceased to believe in the objectivity of the department producing it. That may have been linked, in part, to the fact that the President of the United States was experiencing domestic difficulties, which it is suggested may have led him to distort information and provide reasons for distracting people from his problems. However, I believe that one of the reasons is that Government information, as a source of material on which people can make decisions, has been discredited. The discrediting comes entirely from the way in which the Government's advisers have been operating.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester that it is objectionable for the taxpayer to be paying for people who are simply party political advisers and who are there solely to put a gloss on events to the best advantage of their political masters. Perhaps it will cause problems for political parties, particularly for my own, if we have to continue to dig deep into pockets when the money is not always available.
It is high time we started looking afresh at the way in which the service works. The blurring of the distinction between Government information and political spin is the source of a great many problems and, if it continues unchecked, it will become a real source for evil and for the discrediting of democratic government.

Mr. Anthony D. Wright: We have travelled a long way in the past 50 years. I have in my hand an extract from a little book about Clement Attlee called "The Man From Limehouse". It purports to describe the first Cabinet meeting of the 1945 Labour Government. It says:
At the first meeting of his new Cabinet Attlee said: 'Gentlemen, there are three things against which I must warn you, three things I will not countenance. I want you to heed them carefully.' Then the new Prime Minister recited the three things: '(1) I don't want you ever to be caught talking in the Lobby of the House of Commons. It only leads to making undesirable friends and connections; (2) no loitering or wining and dining in West End restaurants…and finally…(3) Don't ever let me catch ANY of you talking to Lord Beaverbrook.'
We have travelled a good way from that to Charlie Whelan. That tells us a good deal about what has happened to political life over that time.
I will not detain the House with another extract, but Attlee was approached about holding press conferences on the model of the American President. He wrote a sharp note back to the person who suggested that saying that it was a substitute for Parliament and that that was what Ministers should do. I am sure that Madam Speaker would like that sort of response.
All Governments want to manage the news. All Governments want journalists, the newspapers and the broadcast media to write and say nice and applauding things about them. I take that to be a truth of politics across all parties. Some will do it more effectively than others. I suspect that one of the reasons for the bile coming from Conservative Members is that it is now being done rather effectively. The professionalism that the Labour party developed in opposition has been transferred to Government and we are having a more co-ordinated approach to Government information than we have ever seen before in this country. In fact, we are seeing the most concerted approach to putting co-ordination at the centre of government than ever before.
Given that one of the main criticisms of Governments in Britain over the years has been that they are too fragmented and departmentalised, it is not ignoble to try to make them more coherent and effective. The reorganisation, and presentation, of Government are of a piece. The fact that we are doing that in a new and more effective way is part of the reason why people want to comment on it now.
We can look at the evidence. I have to quote the redoubtable Romola Christopherson, partly because I like saying her name, who was an extraordinarily effective press person at the Department of Health. In the much-cited article, she contrasts the ineffectiveness of things before with the effectiveness of things now. She says:
The Conservative Government had a rather ramshackle co-ordination machine called Cab-E-Net, which never really got effective lift off and the electronic diary was cluttered with minor ministerial flower-arranging engagements.
It is not surprising that, if one takes office in a can-do spirit with the intention of bringing in more co-ordination than before, and if one finds that the information machine is antiquated and in need of reform, one will want to sort it out.

Sir George Young: In the interests of balance, will the hon. Gentleman read out what Romola Christopherson said about Charlie Whelan so that we can see how that chimes in with his argument about the new system being better than the old?

Mr. Wright: In the interest of a different sort of balance—the Romola Christopherson article is very long, but we can swap quotations if that is what the right hon. Gentleman wants—I can provide another from a different source. It is from an article that appeared in the New Statesman in June last year. It is written by Ivor Gaber who is a former BBC journalist, a former producer for BBC radio and who has worked at Channel 4 and is now professor of broadcast journalism at Goldsmiths' college in the university of London. The article is based on his experience as a broadcaster working at Westminster and it goes on to be critical about news management under the present Government. A prelude to that part of the article states:
Prior to May 1997 I found that, with occasional exceptions, Whitehall press officers were incompetent, ignorant, lazy and frequently downright rude. Almost invariably, they lacked journalistic or public relations backgrounds and seemed to see their jobs as largely to protect their Ministers from the unwelcome intrusions of the media rather than to act as intermediaries.
So, on the evidence from entirely reputable sources, there is no doubt that there was a problem with the way in which the Government information service worked. There is nothing improper in seeking to modernise it as part of the general attempt to modernise the Government and to bring about more co-ordination. Indeed, as was said during the debate after the Mountfield report, that view was supported within the civil service and was not just a view that came in with politicians from outside.
If that is true, it is also true that the process carries dangers with it. The professionalisation of news management has been the trend since that Attlee quote of 50 years ago. It is happening for all the reasons that have


been mentioned, some technological, some political and many others. The more we have that professionalisation, the more we will have to balance that all the time against those mechanisms which ensure that information is accessible and that accountability is effective.
One cannot do anything about politicians wanting to control the news. All that we can do is make sure that we put in place other mechanisms to ensure that it is balanced so that the integrity of the democratic process is maintained. Without developing any of the arguments, I will simply say that that is why it is important to maintain a robust Parliament. Parliament is an important ingredient in enforcing accountability. It is crucial that relationships of dependency do not develop between Departments, spinners and journalists. If we allow that to happen, we break the free flow of information and begin to destroy what should be a free press and media.
It is important to protect civil servants so that they are never asked to do things that they believe are politically improper. It is crucial that we have robust media who do not become the slaves of spin but who assert their integrity in all the ways that they should. There are worrying signs on that front. The media want to do easier things. It is much easier to follow stories about alleged personal rivalries between Cabinet Ministers than to explore policy on pensions, transport or the euro. Journalists on the whole do not understand those things, but they do understand personal rivalries.
We are in a political environment in which, in a sense, there is nothing much happening. The Government have a huge majority. The Opposition are non-existent. We have a Government who are closer, as we have just heard, to the opinions of people than a Government have ever been in living memory. There is not much moving politically so all that journalists can do is seek out the trivia and tittle-tattle. That is what they are doing.
When the media start to do things such as stopping "News at Ten" or stopping broadcasting proceedings in Parliament, the democratic process is eroded and the information flows between politicians and the citizenry is undermined. So the media have a responsibility, too. Many balancing or rebalancing forces have to be put in place. One that has not been mentioned but is pivotal to all this is the Cabinet. The Cabinet is supposed to be the key co-ordinating mechanism in our system.
Cabinets go through particular life cycles. No sooner does someone announce the death of Cabinet government than it is revived. I suspect that we are on the eve of one of its periodic revivals. That is a good thing. Unless we have effective Cabinet government, we shall not have effective co-ordination at the centre and we shall not in turn be able to enforce the collective accountability that the House and people outside want to see.
Democracy requires debate and argument. It does not require spin. Spin has been elevated because we are frightened of debate and argument. I do not say that in any narrow sense. The political environment is moving towards one in which the media are interested, not in the exchange of views on issues, but in identifying alleged splits between colleagues. That in turn makes the news. Parties in turn know that they will be punished if those splits are perceived to exist. So parties want as far as they can to close down open argument and debate and a substitution necessarily takes place. The spin people


emerge as the substitutes. I am afraid that that devalues the process and eventually the spin people tie themselves up in their own intricate spinneries.
Parliament and the media have to reclaim the ability to engage in proper, grown-up political debate across parties and within parties on issues that matter. That is the most effective thing that we can do to banish the spin merchants to the very edges of politics where they belong.
I am the chair on the Labour side of the Campaign for Freedom of Information. Many hon. Members who have taken part in the debate today have talked about that campaign and have been involved in the argument for a long time. I will not discuss it at length except to say that, when the dust settles, when we have had our arguments about whether the draft Bill is different from the White Paper, when the Select Committee has had a chance to examine it and when there has been outside debate on it—we shall have arguments along the way no doubt—the end of the story will be that this Parliament has introduced a freedom of information Act. That is something that has eluded all previous Parliaments since the war. I suspect that, when people come to write the record of what happened to information in this Parliament, the fact that this Parliament introduced such a Bill will count as the truly significant act.

Mr. Norman Baker: I hope very much that we shall have a freedom of information Act in this Parliament and, more to the point, one with teeth. I fear that, if the Home Secretary has his way—if we are to believe leaks in the newspapers—we will have a watered-down Act. I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). I shall deal with the forthcoming Bill in a few moments.
There is an element of déjá vu about this speech. I remember coming here on Friday 24 April last year, when there was a packed Press Gallery and an empty House, to make a number of points about the Prime Minister's press office. I could save hon. Members a lot of time by simply asking them to read the speech that I made then. The points that I made then were an attempt to be helpful and they are as valid today as they were on that occasion.
I agree with the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) that the spin department of the Labour party was effective before the last election. It was exceedingly effective in getting its message across and it has been effective for most of the Government's time in office so far. That presents its own problem. A Government must recognise that it is not appropriate to put their foot flat on the floor of their Jaguar, or any other car that they might happen to have, and drive at maximum speed. They have to let up. They cannot pull all the levers of government as far as they will go and simply say, "Those levers are there for us to pull and we can do what we want." The Government must exercise some self-restraint but they have not done so in their time in office so far.
I hope that I am not being too unparliamentary if I say that we had a supercilious speech from the Minister for the Cabinet Office. He was dismissive of the serious points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and, indeed, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). The Government have to ask themselves what was the

cause of the carnage that occurred over the Christmas period. There is no point in blaming another party, the media or external forces, whether it be the Americans or someone else. They have to ask themselves what was their part in that. They put in train a chain of events that led inexorably to that crisis. I do not suppose that they will admit that today in the Chamber. They will not say, "We got it wrong," but I hope that, behind the scenes, they are doing some work to change the reasons for that chain of events. It is not in the country's interest, let alone the Government's interest, for those events to be repeated.
The Labour party's spin department overreached itself and it began to believe that it was omnipotent, that it had close contact with Rupert Murdoch, and that, if its staff ate in the right restaurants, met the right people, talked down the right telephones and did this or that deal, it would all be all right. One should never trust the press. That was a foolish mistake for master spinners to make. My conclusion about spinners is that they are good at getting rid of the opposition, but that, when it comes to batting oneself, they are perhaps best kept well down the batting order because they cannot be relied upon to deliver the goods. Will the spin machine be controlled? I very much hope so.
One problem highlighted by hon. Members from all parties is the blurring of the edge between the party machine and the Government machine. I do not pretend that that is anything new; as the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) said, that has been the practice of all Governments throughout the ages—almost since time began in this House. This Government are rather better at it, but the practice is becoming more prominent.
There is a difference between Government and party interests. Bernard Ingham stepped over the line, and no one could reasonably defend his actions as independent, just as no one could defend those of Alastair Campbell. On a number of occasions, I have become very worried about that line being walked over. At Question Time on April fools' day, the Prime Minister defended Mr. Campbell, saying:
There is one reason why the Opposition attack the press spokesman: he does an effective job of attacking the Conservative party."—[Official Report, 1 April 1998; Vol. 309, c. 1252.]
I am all in favour of attacking the Conservative party, but it is not the job of a civil servant—whether a special adviser or otherwise—to do that. There was no satisfactory explanation of why that statement was made, whether the Prime Minister thinks it was a mistake or whether the Government still endorse it. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us directly whether the Government believe that it is the job of Alastair Campbell or Jonathan Powell to attack the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats or anyone else in a partisan way? Or are they neutral civil servants? What is the position in terms of their responsibility for attacking other parties?
As I pointed out when I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, the model contract—I of course give the Government credit for placing it in the Library—says that special advisers—that includes Mr. Campbell—must not take part in public controversy. I think that he has failed that test. They "must…observe discretion"—he has certainly failed that test—and "express comment with moderation". If one talks to the Lobby journalists, who have Mr. Campbell breathing over their shoulders to tell them what should or should not be in their articles, they would say that he has failed that test.
Special advisers must also "avoid personal attacks". The former Secretary of State for Social Security could demonstrate that that particular test has been failed. According to that contract
they should not speak publicly
for their Minister or their Department.
In answer to the Parliamentary Secretary, I do not have a problem with the contents of the model contract, which is absolutely fine. I have a problem with the way in which it is being applied in particular cases—that is what needs to be examined, not the content of the contract. The contract is merely words on paper, which mean nothing unless they are enforced.
There are other examples of the blurring of the line between Government and party. As the Parliamentary Secretary comes from Liverpool, it is appropriate to draw his attention to an invitation issued by the Liverpool Labour party. It states:
Visit the House of Commons—Buffet Lunch and Wine. Travel by Luxury Coach, Thursday 14 January. Prize Draw—12 Winners given tour of 10 Downing Street. Cost £40, all proceeds to the Liverpool Labour Forum.
Rather ironically, it continues:
Fresh Start for Liverpool".
That does not seem to be a fresh start for Liverpool in terms of Labour party organisation.
Having written to the Prime Minister this morning, I was phoned by the Liverpool Echo and told that the event had been mysteriously postponed, or possibly cancelled. I am not sure which, but I was pleased to hear that. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would dissociate himself from that invitation from Liverpool Labour party; confirm that 10 Downing street is a public building and will not be used for fund-raising events; and ensure that there will be no repetition of such an invitation. He must give that assurance, because this is a serious matter, and I hope that he will respond seriously.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. Given that Liberal Democrat Members generally want more codified activity in politics, more written constitutions and so on, does he agree that the Vice-President of the United States has been the subject of legal inquiry for apparent fund-raising, using the White House as his base—a much lesser allegation than the one made by my hon. Friend?

Mr. Baker: The Prime Minister and his colleagues are very close to the American President and perhaps they can learn a lesson from that case.
Part of the answer to such problems is a proper freedom of information Bill—it would eradicate some of the problems that have arisen from the Government during their first 19 months in power. My views—and those expressed by others—are not unique to Members of this House; they are also the views, in some respects, of Madam Speaker. In a television interview last year, from which I quote directly and very carefully, to make sure that it is absolutely correct, she said:
There are far too many of what I would term apparatchiks who have been accustomed, when a party was in opposition, to want to get the maximum publicity. Now in government, they have to be harnessed a little more.

That is exactly the point that I made to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase: the Government cannot expect to pull all their levers as far they will go on every occasion. It would be wrong to do so.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman referred to codified behaviour in response to an earlier intervention. He will be aware of the scurrilous journal The Grassroots Campaigner, which, I understand, is a piece of Liberal Democrat propaganda. A recent issue included an article by the former Liberal Democrat leader in my constituency. He attacked public servants employed by my local council—he and other Liberal Democrats had helped to appoint them—for allegedly giving dodgy advice. If the hon. Gentleman wants codified behaviour, should not he demand an apology to be made to those public servants for that disgraceful attack on their neutrality?

Mr. Baker: I cannot possibly respond to that question in detail, as I have not seen the journal. The Grassroots Campaigner is an internal Liberal Democrat document. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to look into the matter, I shall be happy to do so. However, he refers to a document that no one has seen and expects me to agree, or otherwise, with him. That is a ludicrous position to adopt.
I refer to the report of the working group on the Government information service, published under the auspices of the Cabinet Office in November 1997. I refer to paragraph 57 on page 18, headed "Standards Submissions lay-out", which is advice to neutral civil servants about how to go about their work. It advises on
how any 'bad news' aspect can be damped down.
If it is the function of civil servants to damp down bad news about the Government, they might be very busy in the months ahead.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Not for the first time, I am a little confused by the hon. Gentleman. Does he know of any organisation, even one as idiosyncratic as the Liberal Democrat party, that would put out bad news as a matter of course?

Mr. Baker: I am happy to say that we do not have to put out bad news—there is no bad news about us—and neither should the Government put out bad news. This is not about putting out bad news, but about responding to the bad news that has occurred. If the Labour party wants to use press officers to respond to bad news, it must do so, but it should not use civil servants, who are paid by the state, to damp down its bad news. That is not their function, but the Parliamentary Secretary appears to miss that crucial difference.
As I pointed out, part of the answer to these problems is to have proper information. The Parliamentary Secretary will know that the Government's official position, set out by the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)—although that position might have changed since he was sacked for no apparent reason—is:
Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest".—[Official Report, 16 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 78.]
That is a standard reply to questions.
I could occupy a great deal of the House's time by listing questions that have been asked, but have gone unanswered by Ministers. I shall not bother hon. Members with a huge range of them, but shall refer to one from yesterday. I asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what matters were discussed at the meetings held between Ministers and Monsanto on 29 June and 15 July 1998. He replied:
These were private meetings at which matters relevant to both MAFF and Monsanto were discussed."—[Official Report, 11 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 119.]
That is an illuminating answer: was that Minister really as open as possible with Parliament? Did the answer provide information that Parliament should have? I suggest that it did not. Is "relevant to Monsanto" really a piece of information that I could not have gathered when I tabled my question? No doubt, I thought that they were discussing matters that were not relevant to both parties.
Since when is a meeting between a Government Department and a company involved with agriculture and the environment—in turn, that affects a range of issues—a private meeting? Why cannot we know what went on at that meeting? Hon. Members are here to represent their constituents, so the answer given by the Minister of Agriculture is disgraceful. More to the point, it is completely out of line with the Government's guidance.
I am all in favour of the freedom of information Bill, but it is not yet here. It has been promised, but we have been promised all sorts of things. On 15 July 1997, the Parliamentary Secretary wrote to me explaining why the Government's original commitment to publish a White Paper on freedom of information before the summer recess in 1997 was no longer envisaged. He said that it
would not be practical
and went on to say that the Secretary of State for the Home Department
does not therefore now expect to publish the White Paper before the House rises".
It took a considerably longer time before the White Paper arrived.
When the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) was questioned on this issue on 8 May 1997, shortly after the Government were elected, he said:
I must disappoint you and say that freedom of information has not been dropped and it will feature in the Queen's Speech.
The problem was that he did not say which Queen's Speech. He simply implied that it would be dealt with early on.
On 8 July 1998, the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:
I intend to publish the draft Bill"—
we still do not have it—
for pre-legislative discussion before the end of September."—[Official Report, 8 July 1998; Vol. 315, c. 1055.]
That did not happen either. Again, it was put off.
On 13 July 1998, I asked the Prime Minister whether the Bill would be in the Queen's Speech. He replied:
We will continue to put the Government's priorities forward in the next session."—[Official Report, 21 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 452.]
He did not say yes or no, which was hardly surprising. We now have an elusive reply from the Home Secretary, dated 26 October, which talks of a programme of work early in the new year.
I will believe the Bill when it appears because promise after promise has been broken. I think that it will appear; the question is: what will it contain? That was the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. Will it be a serious Bill, containing a test of substantial harm? Will it apply that test to the security services, or will we repeat the mistake made by the former Prime Minister, James Callaghan, and exclude sections of the community from the Bill's remit? Will the Bill be watered down so that it does nothing, or will it be a serious piece of legislation?
The Government need to be a little humble and modest, and accept that things are not perfect. They must take steps to rectify matters. If the Minister responds by saying that everything is fine in the kitchen, it will not be good enough.

Mr. Andrew Miller: As usual, the Liberal Democrats are presenting trivia to the House and avoiding the substantive issues that affect the nation and interest all our constituents. Half an excuse may be that they are not the official Opposition. The official Opposition are going through a schism with which Labour Members are familiar—we have had our problems in the past—and that is causing them to be such an ineffective Opposition that the media have nothing to get their teeth into except the trivia on to which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has latched. His entire speech relied on a couple of media sources, and he failed to get to grips with the major issues affecting the governance of this country and the modernisation process that must go ahead.
Conservative Members argued against any change in the process of government. They should reflect on that and understand that that is one reason why the country got in such a mess and why they lost control of their troops.
I shall not dwell on special advisers contracts. I was shocked and surprised that one Liberal Democrat found that the contract for special advisers had been placed in the Library, just as we said it would be. That contract contains matters that needed to be codified.
I make no criticism of the individual concerned. I have a great deal of time for the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) because of his talents as a cricketer, but I remember him contesting the West Bromwich, East seat in the 1992 general election, and then spending the period between 1993 and 1997 in the role of special adviser to the former Foreign Secretary, who was previously Secretary of State for Defence. His style was subtle and low key, and the House knew that he was a special adviser, but to say that his was not a party political role is ludicrous. Many Labour Members knew him at that time. I make no criticism of that—the job undertaken by the special advisers appointed by Cabinet and other Ministers was professional.
Soon after the election, Sir Robin Mountfield, permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, produced a report on the future direction of the Government Information and Communications Service. Hon. Members engaged in this debate should look carefully at the important recommendations in his report. Modernisation is about changing how we as public servants conduct our business in the best interests of the citizens whom we seek to represent. Government is an extremely complex process and I have no doubt that the GICS continues to provide a politically impartial service to the Government.
When Labour were in opposition, the Conservatives regularly argued that we had no business skills and could not run a small or medium company, let alone a major corporation or Great Britain plc. They seem to have missed a substantive point: that every single major successful company in this country has radically shaken up its management and organisational structure in the past 10 to 15 years. That has been the hallmark of the successes that we have seen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said, a substantive argument can be made for moving away from the stovepipe mentality that exists within the structures surrounding public service. Most major companies have gone through that process and, if we are to succeed in getting the best value for money out of the enormously complicated resources needed for the delivery of service to our citizens, that is what we must do.
We should start by looking through the right end of the telescope—from the point of view of the citizen who wants to receive the service—rather than looking at things in accordance with the structures that happen to be there simply because they have been there from the year dot. In a recent speech, the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that, when constituents come to see us in our surgeries, they do not care whether we are counsellors, citizens advice bureaux, Members of Parliament or Ministers of the Crown. They come to us because they have a problem, and they want that problem to be solved. We should address the structures of government in the process of change, which we must surely undergo, on that premise.
Modernisation has been the hallmark of this Government's activities. We have created a devolved process, starting with Scotland and continuing with Wales, and incorporated the European convention on human rights. A White Paper on modernising the processes of government is promised, and is forecast to have four major themes: strategic policy making; joined-up delivery; dealing with benefits that accrue from the information age; and achieving best value for public services. Those are important, strategic issues with which we need to get on. Their delivery is already under way through the creation, for example, of the social exclusion unit, which seeks to bring together cross-departmental activities.
There are contradictions in the positions adopted by Liberal Democrat Members on freedom of information. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) does not understand that there are obviously issues of commercial confidentiality involved. I saw the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) shake his head at his remarks. Another Liberal Democrat Member argued that everything should be in the public domain, despite the fact that, clearly, some matters must remain confidential. They criticise the fact that private financial arrangements have entered the public domain, yet, given their literal definition of freedom of information, they should expect such matters to be in the public domain in the first place. There seems to be a double standard in their approach.
Freedom of information is an important strand of modern democracy. It is a highly complex subject, and the House would be making a very bad mistake if it rushed into creating legislation that clearly did not work.

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) argued for improved freedom of information. I recognise that there are different views throughout the House on the issue. The Home Secretary has pledged that a Bill will be published. Giving the Home Office responsibility for freedom of information, alongside issues such as human rights and data protection—and eventually, I believe, privacy—was the correct structural move.
I hope that we shall be able to depoliticise all modernisation issues and engender some general support for the fact that they concern the improvement of the delivery of services to all citizens whom we represent, about whose needs the House and the Government should think first. That is what this Government are all about.

Ms Margaret Moran: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. When I first heard that the Opposition were intending to debate Government information, I was delighted. I thought that it would be an important and opportune moment to discuss practical issues, and some of the key elements of the Government's commitment to constitutional reform and the modernisation and greater openness of government.
Throughout this debate, however, I have been terribly disappointed to hear more from the Opposition about tittle-tattle on media issues and unsubstantiated allegations regarding breaches of the code for special advisers than about what I consider to be the substance of the debate: the importance of Government information and the way in which we use it to empower our citizens. It is very sad that we have spent so much time debating Mr. Alastair Campbell who, unfortunately, is unable to defend himself in the Chamber.

Mr. Kemp: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ms Moran: Due to lack of time, I shall not, if my hon. Friend will excuse me.
We have spent more time debating Alastair Campbell than we have the important steps that the Government are committed to taking to increase access to information. Reference has, of course, been made to the forthcoming freedom of information Act. We should be welcoming the Government's commitment to wide and extensive consultation on the terms of the Act and the introduction, for the first time, of the opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny of a major piece of legislation, which will fundamentally and radically affect the lives of every citizen. Instead, the Opposition have querulously attempted to impugn the Government's lack of progress. Should anybody need to be reminded, full consultation and slower legislative progress are better than passing an Act in haste and repenting at leisure. The ghost of the Child Support Agency should be hovering on all our shoulders in that respect.
We should address the fact that the Government are to introduce for the first time—sooner rather than later, we are assured—a radical step forward in our citizens' right to information. We must consider what that means for our constituents. Such access to information is important to human rights and otherwise. If we are truly to empower our citizens, we must also think about how such information can be accessed and used by them. I have


believed in that passionately since my days as a council leader, when I and my colleagues saw that access to, and use of, public information was part of a solution to improving the processes of government and of democracy. Everyone in the House should be concerned about that, given the low turnout in most elections, especially local ones.
To achieve the ambition of truly empowering citizens by giving them information, several issues must be addressed. I am sorry that the Opposition have not mentioned some of them. A right to access to information is important because it allows the provision of better information on services, and improves democratic dialogue and citizen participation. The feeling of having greater information and, therefore, more success in connecting with the decision-making process could demonstrate that there is more to democracy than a periodic vote. If people are given full information, they can properly judge whether Governments are delivering on their promises. That is why this Government consider that access to information is so important.
We must address two important substantive issues on access to information. First, there is a practical problem. It is not good enough for the Government simply to provide information, radical though that step will be. In order truly to empower people, we must ensure that citizens receive the full breadth of information. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take on board concern about whether mechanisms are in place to ensure not just that the Government are able to provide such information, but that agencies at arm's length can provide full and timely proactive information. We must identify and co-ordinate the necessary data across agencies so that the Government can be proactive in their delivery and citizens properly informed. We need one simple computerised access point, using live operational data, accessible to local and central Government, so that action can be taken at the appropriate level. I am simply asking whether we have that yet.
Secondly, Government information should be accessible to all. We must ensure that our citizens do not merely have the information, but can develop the necessary skills to use it, to recognise and evaluate it and to articulate what is needed. It is incumbent on the Government not just to provide information, but to ensure that we have a responsibility to our citizens to enable them to have the skills that are required for the useful and appropriate employment of the information. Not enough attention has been paid to that so far, and I hope that Ministers will consider it now.
I am grateful to Opposition Members for giving us an opportunity to raise the issues that we have discussed; but I am sorry that what they gave us was a rather sad political punch-up on the basis of spurious tittle-tattle, rather than a serious debate on Government information.

Mr. Nick Harvey: I am grateful for the chance to say a little in summing up a debate which, in my view, far from being sad, has been interesting and lively. We have been given an interesting insight into the way in which the Government believe that they are handling important issues.
If, as the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) suggested, all that we have seen over the past few weeks has been tittle-tattle and trivia, I wonder why two

Ministers have felt it necessary to resign, and why one of the Government's chief communications experts has stepped down. I cannot but reflect on what was said by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) when he was criticised by the Minister for the Cabinet Office for having dared to quote various remarks about rivalry—remarks that the Minister suggested were unsubstantiated. Surely, that is precisely because such remarks are given to the newspapers and other media on an unattributable basis. If more people put their remarks on the record—as Romola Christopherson did in a very intelligent article to which a number of hon. Members have referred—we could engage in far more open and informed debate on Government information, freedom of information and many other matters that have been touched on today.
Mr. Charlie Whelan is to resign. I wonder whether I am alone in mourning his passing, if only because, if one had the good fortune to time a visit to the Red Lion for a swift pint to coincide with one of his many visits, one was often able to hear a rather more candid and open explanation of Government policy than can sometimes be heard from Ministers at the Dispatch Box. Mr. Whelan is, however, the author of his own undoing in many respects. In his farewell remarks—if such they were—he said that he felt he had to go because he had become the story; but, as I think will be recognised, Mr. Whelan's style of going about his business rather suggested that he was courting recognition and attention.
Another casualty of this affair was one of the authors of what some have called the black arts. Perhaps it would have removed some of the mystique of what those people do if they had been willing to put much more of what they did on the record. It would be a welcome change if Mr. Alastair Campbell conducted his briefings on camera, as is done in the United States and many other parts of the world. That would get rid of some of the so-called tittle-tattle, and would smoke out and substantiate items that we read in the newspapers, which some have sought this afternoon to dismiss as mere rivalries.
Both the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office have made points about the new arrangements. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) stressed that change was needed, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out that some of the changes that have been made have been to the good—that some new practices are an improvement on the old ones. Both Ministers, however, tried to give the impression that, because there is now a code, because there have been Orders in Council and because a contract has been published, everything is all right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) said, if all is now hunky-dory because the information has been published and is out in the open, what was the cause of the Christmas carnage? The arrangements may look marvellous in theory, but they are plainly not working in practice.
As the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) pointed out, there is no mechanism for policing all the new arrangements. The permanent secretaries cannot remove those whom they consider to be in breach of the contracts, because they did not appoint them in the first place. That contradiction lies at the heart of the new arrangements. It is not that they are all bad; it is not that there is no role


for people who do some of the things that are done. The drawing up of these documents, however, has not produced the clarity and transparency that we expect.
Some of the rivalries are not as trivial as one or two speakers have suggested. We shall be given a chance to read the biography of the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry shortly, but we have already learnt from the pen of the same author that some of the rivalries between No. 10 and No. 11 date back to the occasion when they vied for the leadership. One surmises that all sorts of undertakings must have been given to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, which caused Mr. Charlie Whelan to observe on one occasion that, in his view, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the chief executive of the Government and the Prime Minister merely the chairman. I think that some of Mr. Whelan's antics thereafter can be judged in that light.
In truth, the fact that so many members of the Government have had their own private spin doctors waiting to score points over other members of the Government means that there was an accident waiting to happen—and it happened to blow up over Christmas. It should be realised that, underlying the failings of the information system, are deeper political problems that cannot be papered over.
The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said that nothing could be done about the news management systems, and that what we needed was more accessibility and accountability. The solution, he said, was better parliamentary debate and a return to Cabinet government. I hope that he is right about Cabinet government; perhaps Cabinet meetings, in the new spirit of comradeship, will last longer than the present 20 minutes or so. He is wrong, however, to suggest that nothing can be done about the communications methods that are being used.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed pointed out, one of the techniques used by spin doctors is the withholding of factual information until the media have written the story. It is an old technique. They make sure that they have the headlines that they want, and only in the days that follow do the journalists get their eyes on the facts and realise that they have written a bogus tale. Not many are big enough to acknowledge in their columns that they have been sold a pup, and to revise what they have written in the light of the facts that have subsequently emerged.
We must pay heed to what Madam Speaker has said on several occasions. Hers was one of the quotations from newspapers that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston criticised my right hon. Friend for referring to; I am sure that no one would regard her remarks as trivial. We need to have facts here, on the Floor of the House, so that proper interrogation is possible at the time. We do not want the facts to be buried in thick tomes and looked at afterwards.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) was right to say that the real matter of substance for the future was the introduction of freedom of information legislation. I was somewhat mystified by the comment of the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who suggested that we were not paying tribute to the Government

for instituting an inquiry on BSE. Nothing could be further from the truth: we readily pay tribute to the Government for having had the good sense to launch that inquiry. The point that we were trying to make was that, if a proper freedom of information culture already existed, it would not have been necessary to hold such a public inquiry.
I will go further. If, in the course of the whole long, sorry BSE saga, there had been more information in the public domain, it can reasonably be said that some of the more dreadful elements of the disaster would never have happened. The Minister for the Cabinet Office stated that he entirely agreed that the public's best interests would be served by maximising access to information, and that there was a need for greater openness, accountability and involvement with the public. I hope that, when he brings the draft Bill forward shortly, as he says, that will be a yardstick against which the Government's proposals can be favourably measured.
We will have to look closely at some important details. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) rightly focused on one of them: the test of harm to the public interest from disclosing information and whether that will have to amount to substantial harm, or simply be an all-encompassing, rather woolly definition of "harm", which could reach just about every nook and cranny that anyone wanted it to. Therefore, the concept of substantial harm is valuable, as indeed would be the laying down of some specific grounds on which any branch of Government could claim that harm was accruing. Specific grounds will be welcome, but we must not at all costs lose the substantial part of the test.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said that, during his professional career, he had seen much inconsequential information withheld simply because of a knee-jerk instinct for secrecy. It is true to say that that has bedevilled the way in which public administration has operated for too long. We must be ambitious in what we do in response to that.
The hon. Member for Luton, South fairly tried to give the Government some credit for the fact that we shall shortly have the innovation of pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill. No one from the Opposition Benches, or probably from anywhere else, would criticise that, but we have had to wait a long time for pre-legislative scrutiny even to begin.
One optimistic Labour Member said that the draft Bill would appear within the next couple of weeks. Let us hope that that is true, and that the claim will be substantiated and the aspiration met, because we have waited too long for the freedom of information legislation to come out. Nagging at the back of many minds, the nasty fear remains that we could end up with the option that was available on 2 May 1997—to put on to a legislative footing the codified arrangements that the previous Government had tried and, indeed, failed to make any sense of.
If, after two years, we have nothing or little more than that, there is no doubt that there will be loud condemnation from the left, right and centre. If it amounts to little more than that, it will absolutely fail the test that was put by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, who offered the prospect that history might come to judge the legislation as one of the defining actions in the whole of the Parliament. If that is what we are waiting for—legislation of such an epic nature that it will be the defining achievement of the Government during the


Parliament—let us hope that it will prove to have been worth the wait. If it is a damp squib along the lines that have been referred to, there will be much frustration, annoyance and condemnation.
It has been a traumatic few weeks for the Government. They have brought much of the damage on themselves simply through their obsession with presentation. The way in which they have chosen to go about conducting the presentation of their policies and business has, in effect, brewed up trouble for them; they were the authors of their downfall. I hope that they will now be able to see that, for all their efforts to put the new arrangements on to a visible and open footing, they have simply failed.
Chiding remarks have been made about a former head of the Department of Health press office, but when someone such as that comes out and makes those observations, she or he should be taken notice of. She is an expert witness who has seen the whole operation from the inside. She has served Governments of both colours with some distinction and has been noted as an expert in the sector.
Under the current news management regime, there is a danger that the reputation that our civil service and the Government information service—the point was made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield—have gained over the years for impartiality is at risk of being undermined by what is going on.
The right hon. Member for South Shields remarked that we have the opportunity, through introducing legislation, to make ourselves one of the most open societies in the western world, instead of one of the most secretive. I hope that that is the ambition of the Government. That is the measure by which we must judge the legislation, when they finally get to bring it out into the open and let us have a look at it.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): I am pleased to wind up the debate for the Government and to seek the House's agreement to the amendment. Obviously, like all Opposition Members, I am seized by the importance of the issue, given that there are now four members of the official Opposition in the Chamber and only half the Liberal Democrat party has attended one of its precious Opposition days.
I was particularly taken by the fact that, although the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) opened the debate and the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) closed it, in between, only one Liberal Democrat Member wanted to engage in what the Liberal Democrats see as a momentous issue—their allegation that there has been some corruption of the Government information service. The implication was clear.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), for Luton, South (Ms Moran), and for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for their constructive, if at times slightly critical, contributions. As a Government, we recognise that we can have friends who are critical as long as it is constructive criticism. That is not necessarily what we have heard today.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to put on record, as indeed did the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the Government's appreciation of the important work that

is performed by the Government Information and Communications Service. It performs its work diligently, effectively and in a way that enables members of all parties to have confidence in its ability to serve Administrations of whatever political party. That is a key issue when we consider the roles of special advisers. We have to have a halfway house between the two roles if we are to maintain confidence in continuity in government. I have no experience whatever of members of the GICS showing anything other than that studied neutrality and commitment to the public service that we extol our civil service for. Rightly, it is held in high regard for that throughout the world.
All Governments have a duty to explain their policies to the public. The criticism that we have received for the emphasis that we place on presentation is misplaced, if for no other reason than that we have made a virtue of presentation. That may upset a few Opposition Members, but we have made no secret of our presentation of Government policies being integral in terms not only of the presentation itself, but of the development of policy.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My hon. Friend talks, rightly, about the need for accurate presentation of policy. May I give him a contrasting example of poor-quality presentation? Is he aware that the leader of the Liberal Democrats in my borough was forced recently to apologise publicly for a Liberal Democrat "Focus" leaflet that alleged that a vast sum of public money had been wasted by new Labour councillors on office equipment and showers? Having apologised in public for that leaflet, he then attempted in the press to disown responsibility for the leaflet.
Will my hon. Friend, in his usual gentle style, chide the Liberal Democrats in my constituency and, indeed, on the Opposition Benches for their complete failure to ensure that the information that they put out bears some passing resemblance to the truth?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the Liberal Democrats do not require chiding from me; I am sure that they will be chided by their own party for being caught with their metaphorical trousers down. One of the virtues of presentation is that, on occasion, we have to rebrand things, often where the product is not moving—where it is not being bought by its potential customers. Perhaps we should rebrand the Liberal Democrats as Heinz, because of the 57 varieties of truth in which they indulge.
I should like to deal with some of the specific points that have been made in the debate. I shall pick, first, on the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who made a comment about bypassing Parliament. Paragraph 27 of the ministerial code makes it absolutely clear that
When Parliament is in session, Ministers will want to bear in mind the desire of Parliament that the most important announcements of Government policy should be made, in the first instance, in Parliament.
We take that commitment seriously. I am not saying that there are not occasions on which, inadvertently, hints and words are dropped. However, the firm intention—and, as far as I am aware, the firm commitment—of all Ministers is to subscribe to the code.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I would have if the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber for most of the debate. I will not give way to him.
If anyone has a complaint about a Minister not applying the code, he or she can raise it with the Speaker.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) asked about the objectivity of special advisers. He will know full well that paragraph 14(c) of the model contract for special advisers exempts special advisers from the requirements for impartiality and objectivity. Special advisers are not expected to work for a different Administration. The point is that special advisers can put a political slant on matters, as one should not expect civil servants to do. That is the point of the distinct designation of special advisers. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is fully aware of the point.
I was taken aback by the Liberal Democrats' apparent verbal dyslexia in talking about "carnage over Christmas". I would understand it if they had talked about the "carnival over Christmas" for the press and the other media, and for those who got themselves into a terrible fix. However, it was certainly not carnage—[Interruption.] Two Ministers did resign. However, there was a marked difference between that and events in the previous Government, when evidence of wrongdoing was plain, but Ministers hung on by their fingernails until their fingers bled.
Responsibility is taken seriously in this Government. When someone feels that they are detracting from the impact that the Government are making or want to make, they expeditiously resign. That is what happened over Christmas. I do not call that carnage, unless carnage can be self-inflicted.

Mr. David Ruffley: The Minister will recall that, on taking up his current post, the Minister for the Cabinet Office said that his objective was to reduce the amount of backbiting, counter-briefing and briefing against colleagues. In the light of the events of the past month, has not the right hon. Gentleman failed abjectly to achieve his objective?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The short answer is no. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Public Administration Select Committee and should be au fait with events in the Cabinet Office—how it was reconfigured and how roles were redefined. I am full of praise for the way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has dealt with the one or two little hiccups that we have had in recent months. Along the way, he has been able, with his usual aplomb, to swat aside Opposition Members and journalists. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that point.
I should deal with the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who talked about a terrible series of calamities that befell the Government. He used terminology that was indicative of the problem with much of so-called "spin". He directly quoted Chris Buckland; he referred to his opinion of Whelan and to his having said of him, "he is suspected of". I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, when they bother to turn out for our debates, there is a great variety of commentators

and reporters in the Press Gallery. Some of them are extremely well-informed, whereas others would have done credit to Jonathan Swift's Grub street. Nevertheless, we do not take as gospel everything that is said or imputed by every newspaper, or in every radio broadcast and television news-spot.
We should deal rather more with the substantive issues. The problem is that people have been more concerned with the froth and bubble than with the substance of the issues.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the Minister suggesting that it was a "carnival" for two of his very senior colleagues to be driven from the Government, and that it was all got up by the press?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I am not suggesting anything of the sort. I was suggesting that there was a carnival for the press—a feeding frenzy—which was not unusual. I am sure that the frenzy will continue until the press finds fresh targets. The hon. Members for Lewes (Mr. Baker) and for North Devon repeatedly mentioned "carnage". My definition of the word is entirely different from theirs.
I should like to take issue with some of the points made by some of those who did speak in the debate. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), for example, misconstrued—as some type of crude and opportunistic populism—the Government's wish to represent people's real interests by ascertaining what they think. I reject the misconstruction. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) correctly pointed out that our initiatives such as, for example, the people's panel—in which we try to discover what people really think about the Government's policies—are, if anything, undervalued.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned Jonathan Haslam. When Mr. Haslam was questioned on the matter, he wrote a disclaimer—which I had, but seem to have lost. He said that some of the comments attributed to him had nothing to do with him. I have found the missing letter. To provide some perspective on the allegations of the politicisation and purge of press officers at the GICS, I shall quote from Jonathan Haslam's letter to the Committee Clerk. He said:
There has been a great deal of misinformed comment about my reasons for leaving the civil service, most recently in an article by Mr. Andy Wood in The Sunday Times. It might be helpful for the Committee to know the facts.
It might be inconvenient for Opposition Members if the facts turn out to be rather different from those that have been suggested. Mr. Haslam continued:
I left the civil service entirely at my own wish, to seek new challenges and rewards in the private sector. I did so against a background of working closely with David Blunkett at the Department for Education and Employment … and operated on friendly terms with them and my civil service colleagues. I am perfectly content for these facts to be spelt out publicly again should any suggestions to the contrary emerge during the course of the Committee's inquiry.
If a Government information officer feels that he or she has a problem with the Prime Minister's official spokesman, he or she can go to his or her deputy, who is a member of the Government information service, to the head of profession in the information service or to the civil service commissioners so that any wrongs can be righted. The GICS is certainly not afflicted by a climate


of fear or oppression, which is why those at the GICS were so enthusiastic and productive in consultations on the Mountfield report, which deals with their own future.
As there is not much time left in this debate, I shall say only that the other half of the Liberal Democrats' motion dealt with the freedom of information Bill. The Government have made a firm manifesto commitment to introduce such a Bill, and I pay tribute to work done on the Bill in the Government's early days by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. He will be the first to recognise the complexities involved, on arriving in government, in framing a freedom of information Bill that meets all the needs. It is an immense project. We have set out to achieve that. My right hon. Friend produced an important White Paper. There will be three months' pre-legislative scrutiny. A draft Bill will provide an opportunity for further representations to be made because we want to get it right.
I ask the House to accept the Government amendment and reject the motion.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 331.

Division No. 32]
[7 pm.


AYES


Allan, Richard
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Keetch, Paul


Baker, Norman
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Kirkwood, Archy


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Livsey, Richard


Brake, Tom
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Brand, Dr Peter
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Breed, Colin
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Oaten, Mark


Burnett, John
Öpik, Lembit


Burstow, Paul
Rendel, David


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Chidgey, David
Sanders, Adrian


Cotter, Brian
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Gorrie, Donald
Tyler, Paul


Hancock, Mike
Webb, Steve


Harris, Dr Evan
Willis, Phil


Harvey, Nick



Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mr. Andrew Stunell and


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Mr. Edward Davey.


NOES



Abbott, Ms Diane



Ainger, Nick
Bermingham, Gerald


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Berry, Roger


Allen, Graham
Best, Harold


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Blackman, Liz


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Ashton, Joe
Blears, Ms Hazel


Atherton, Ms Candy
Blizzard, Bob


Austin, John
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Banks, Tony
Boateng, Paul


Barron, Kevin
Borrow, David


Battle, John
Bradley, Keith (Withington)



Bayley, Hugh
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Beard, Nigel
Bradshaw, Ben


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Bennett, Andrew F
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Benton, Joe
Buck, Ms Karen





Burden, Richard
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Burgon, Colin
Fyfe, Maria


Butler, Mrs Christine
Galloway, George


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Gardiner, Barry


Caborn, Richard
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda



Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Godsiff, Roger


Canavan, Dennis
Goggins, Paul


Cann, Jamie

Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chaytor, David
Grocott, Bruce


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gunnell, John


Church, Ms Judith
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hanson, David


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Healey, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clwyd, Ann
Heppell, John


Coaker, Vernon
Hesford, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cohen, Harry
Hill, Keith


Coleman, Iain
Hinchliffe, David


Colman, Tony
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Connarty, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Home Robertson, John


Cooper, Yvette
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
Hope, Phil


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Howells, Dr Kim


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Lindsay


Crausby, David
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hurst, Alan


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hutton, John


Dalyell, Tam
Iddon, Dr Brian


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Illsley, Eric


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Ingram, Adam


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jamieson, David


Dawson, Hilton
Jenkins, Brian


Dean, Mrs Janet
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Denham, John
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)


Drew, David
Keeble, Ms Sally


Drown, Ms Julia
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kemp, Fraser


Edwards, Huw
Khabra, Piara S


Efford, Clive
Kidney, David


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ennis, Jeff
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Etherington, Bill
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Fatchett, Derek
Kingham, Ms Tess


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fisher, Mark
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Flint, Caroline
Laxton, Bob


Flynn, Paul
Lepper, David


Follett, Barbara
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Rt Hon Derek







Levitt, Tom
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Olner, Bill


Linton, Martin
O'Neill, Martin


Livingstone, Ken
Organ, Mrs Diana


Lock, David
Palmer, Dr Nick


McAllion, John
Pearson, Ian


McAvoy, Thomas
Pendry, Tom


McCabe, Steve
Pickthall, Colin


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Pike, Peter L


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Plaskitt, James


McDonagh, Siobhain
Pollard, Kerry


Macdonald, Calum
Pond, Chris


McDonnell, John
Pope, Greg


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Powell, Sir Raymond


McIsaac, Shona
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


McNulty, Tony
Primarolo, Dawn


MacShane, Denis
Prosser, Gwyn


Mactaggart, Fiona
Purchase, Ken


McWilliam, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Mallaber, Judy
Quinn, Lawrie


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Rammell, Bill


Marek, Dr John
Rapson, Syd


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Raynsford, Nick


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Martlew, Eric
Roche, Mrs Barbara 


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Rooker, Jeff


Meale, Alan
Rooney, Terry


Merron, Gillian
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Michael, Alun
Rowlands, Ted


Milburn, Alan
Roy, Frank


Miller, Andrew
Ruane, Chris


Mitchell, Austin
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Moffatt, Laura
Ryan, Ms Joan


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Savidge, Malcolm


Moran, Ms Margaret
Sawford, Phil


Morgan. Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Shaw, Jonathan


Morley, Elliot
Sheerman, Barry


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mountford, Kali
Singh, Marsha


Mudie, George
Skinner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Angela (Basildon) 


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Naysmith, Dr Doug



Norris, Dan
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)





Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Trickett, Jon


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Snape, Peter
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Soley, Clive
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Vis, Dr Rudi


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Walley, Ms Joan


Steinberg, Gerry
Wareing, Robert N


Stevenson, George
Watts, David


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
White, Brian


Stinchcombe, Paul
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wicks, Malcolm


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wills, Michael


Stringer, Graham
Winnick, David


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wise, Audrey


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wood, Mike


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Woolas, Phil


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Worthington, Tony


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Tipping, Paddy
Tellers for the Noes:


Todd, Mark
Mr. David Clelland and


Touhig, Don
Jane Kennedy.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to modernising Government; commends the professionalism of the Government Information and Communications Service (GICS) in carrying out the important task of effectively communicating and explaining policies, decisions and actions of the Government of the day; recognises that the Mountfield Report set out the future direction of the GICS and confirmed the long accepted conventions of impartiality and propriety; believes that the model contract for special advisers, which defined, for the first time in a public document, the roles and responsibilities of special advisers, should be welcomed; applauds the Government's intention to publish a draft Freedom of Information Bill as soon as possible; and welcomes the intention of the Select Committee on Public Administration to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill.

UK Role in Europe

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I must tell the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the display of "absentee government" by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in failing to be present at the official launch of the euro and in not giving a clear lead to British businesses in relation to future UK membership of the euro; believes that the Government's failure to come to terms with the euro will undermine the prospects for exercising British leadership in Europe; calls on the Government to set out a clear strategy and timetable for British membership of the euro, including measures to accelerate convergence of interest rates, an early report on plans to make Britain's inflation target compatible with that used within the euro zone, urgent clarification of the remit of the cross-party euro preparations committee, initiation of an annual HM Treasury report to Parliament on progress on the Government's five convergence criteria, and steps to encourage an open debate on the appropriate level at which sterling should join the euro; and further urges the Government to contribute to the development of a European Union which is open, accountable, democratic and decentralised, and in which the powers of European institutions, the constitutional relationship between the EU and member states and the rights of the citizens of EU member states are more clearly defined through the establishment of a constitution for Europe.
I begin by welcoming the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to his new role and—although she is not here—by congratulating the new Paymaster General on her, perhaps unexpected, promotion.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Paymistress General.

Mr. Bruce: I think she is still called the Paymaster General. I hope that they will engage with us in the debate, even though this is the Chief Secretary's first outing. Nevertheless, it is a pity that, over the past month, the internal warfare of the Government has been a distraction from key policy issues facing the country—not least, during the middle of the mayhem, the introduction of the euro among 11 members on continental Europe: a matter of crucial importance to the future of this country.
In relation to the euro in particular, the lack of clarity on policy—not merely the chaos in the top echelons of Government—has been responsible for what I can only describe as a very low profile for the Chancellor and his team during that crucial episode. The Chancellor's own contribution to the relaunch of new Labour this week was a speech on Monday—I read the entire text—which failed even to mention the euro. In the first weeks of this new year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not even mention the euro—even though the speech was billed by the Chancellor himself as a look at
the wider horizon of our vision … the country which we will build in the years ahead.
I am sorry that the Chancellor will not seize the opportunity that we have given him today, since the launch of the euro, to shed some light from his perspective on the Government's position on the matter. That is in no way to denigrate the Chief Secretary's contribution to the debate. I wonder whether the Chancellor is still being distracted by the internal divisions within the Government. The funny thing about the Chancellor's

speech is that, although there was no room to mention the euro, he did find space on page 5 to emphasise that action was needed urgently to tackle what he called the
culture of adversarial industrial relations in the workplace.
I just wonder whether that was a reference to his own workplace.
On the same page of his speech, the Chancellor said that he wanted to bring to an end the era of "absentee government". That seems particularly resonant when we are talking about the Government's handling of the euro. It seems to me, and to my party, that "absentee government" is precisely what the country is being offered in relation to this hugely important issue—absentee government when it comes to policy conviction or serious preparations, and even at the launch of the euro itself, when the Chancellor just decided to stay away. He is absent again today, ducking the first opportunity to tell us what the Government are doing about this central issue. So much for the Prime Minister's claim that the Government are returning to dealing with substance.
It is sad and extraordinary that, in the days that marked the beginning of this project, Britain's Chancellor was lying low at home in Scotland—where, incidentally, according to today's edition of The Scotsman, enthusiasm for the euro is a lot greater than in the rest of the UK; opinion is evenly divided. Interestingly enough, while the Chancellor was keeping quiet in Scotland, the shadow Chancellor was apparently touring the Pacific on business for an American investment bank. We had absentee government from the Chancellor and absentee opposition from the Conservative party. That is what Britain is getting on the issue of the euro.
My party regrets that the Government have not taken a clearer position and made greater efforts to convince the public of the potential benefits. We unashamedly regret the fact that not enough is being done to prepare Britain for the option of joining. The Chief Secretary will no doubt respond to that, but the Government's position, according to the Chancellor, is that they are determined to "prepare and then decide"—to put in place the necessary preparations while making absolutely no commitment on the final decision.
Would not a sensible Government decide first, and commit itself to, when, rather than if? Surely the logical decision would be to decide and then prepare, rather than the other way round. It is simply impossible for the Government to prepare seriously for the euro while remaining committed to a policy of indecision.
The Chancellor's approach means that what is being done by the Government tend to be only the small things that are not central to convergence or to preparation, with the rather big things being left undone. In the past few days, I have had a number of discussions with large and small businesses in Scotland and in England, and the definite response that I received was that people are looking for clarity and a clear lead from the Government on business decisions. How can anyone expect the private sector—hard-headed business men and business women—to invest serious amounts of cash in preparations that could turn out to be simply a waste of time? As a representative of one organisation said to me, if the Government are not prepared to tell us what they intend to do, why do they expect us to put our money where their mouth is not?

Jacqui Smith: In the interests of clarity, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Liberal


Democrats believe that, regardless of the British economic interest, regardless of convergence criteria and regardless of where we are in the economic cycle, we should rush into the euro now?

Mr. Bruce: No. I am sorry that I gave way.
I should tell the Chief Secretary that "prepare and decide" is a political strategy to get through the next general election; it is not a sensible economic strategy designed to promote the national economic interest. My only comment on the intervention of the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) is that the Government must make clear their position if they are to provide leadership in the national economic interest.
We have rehearsed many times in the House the arguments for and against the euro in principle. That is not the subject on which I shall focus now. We know where most of us—although perhaps not the Government—stand on the issue. I ask the Government to do four specific things to advance preparations for the euro.
I hope that, on his first outing, the Chief Secretary will engage with us on these four points and give us four specific answers. His two new Labour predecessors proved to be careful and competent batsmen who could be relied on—that was their characteristic—to stay safely at the wicket and play a straight bat. I hope that we can use our debate to advance understanding of Government policy and to make some constructive suggestions, and I urge the Government to respond. If the debate has been worth while, it will leave us better informed about Government policy and what the Government propose to do to plan and prepare.
My first question relates to the Government's target for inflation. If we are to join the European single currency, we will eventually need to move to monitoring or targeting in terms of the harmonised index of consumer prices, as used in the euro zone. That raises important questions about the composition of different inflation indices, which may reflect different spending patterns in different member states, and how a new target will be defined.
According to one or two reports that appeared over the new year period, the Government seem to be briefing some newspapers on the matter already. I was asked to contribute to a discussion on it on "The World at One" around new year. Are the Government committed to introducing a target for the harmonised measure of inflation during this Parliament? What issues are the Government examining in that connection? When will we have an announcement on the matter, given the important effect that it would have on monetary policy, inflation expectations and the Bank of England's inflation target?
My second point relates to the stability and level of the pound. The Government are well aware that our membership of the euro could be blocked, at least for a time, if existing members cannot be shown a sustained period of stability in our exchange rate in the run-up to membership, or if they believe that the pound is fundamentally misaligned. The Government are sometimes a little complacent in assuming that that issue does not need to be addressed.
I draw the attention of the House to an article in The Independent today, which I suspect did not arrive there by sheer chance. It claims that the Treasury has submitted an unpublished report on the matter to the European Commission. When is the report to be made available to the House? [Interruption.] I hear that it is in the Library, but it is described in The Independent as "an unpublished report".

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): As a point of information to assist the hon. Gentleman, the report alluded to in The Independent—he should not necessarily believe everything that he reads in that newspaper or any other—which we submitted to the European Commission before Christmas was placed simultaneously in the Libraries of both Houses.

Mr. Bruce: I see. The report was presumably placed in the Library when the House was in recess, with no notification to any hon. Member of the fact that it had been placed there. Another example, then, of open government and freedom of information.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Did my hon. Friend hear a Minister earlier today denying that his Government ever made important statements without bringing them to the House? In the previous debate, during which I do not think the Chief Secretary was present, one of his colleagues stated explicitly that, when an important document was to be published, a statement would be made to the House. That does not seem to have happened.

Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point which shows how these two debates fit logically back to back.
The Independent reports that the document states that
the new arrangements provide the best platform to deliver greater stability in the sterling-euro exchange rate.
I do not know what those arrangements are. Do the Government envisage any policy mechanisms to stabilise the euro-sterling rate? Will the Chief Secretary clarify that? If the Government have put a paper in the Library dealing with their policy to stabilise the exchange rate, will they tell us what their policy is, what the rate is and how they propose to achieve it?
If, as I suspect, that is just a general statement that the Chancellor is using to inform the debate without specific commitments, will he tell us what the Government think might be an appropriate rate for sterling to join the euro? Such a debate would help to create a consensus that could give stability to the pound in what would otherwise be rather turbulent waters.
In my discussions with business people in the past day or two, a number of them said that, although the launch of the euro had gone relatively smoothly, they could foresee mid-year circumstances that could create turbulence in the market and cause sterling either to shoot up or to shoot down, which would be extremely destabilising to an already fragile British economy.

Mr. David Lock: According to the hon. Gentleman, he is the only one who has been working over Christmas, while everyone else has been doing other things. His motion refers to the level at which sterling


should join the euro. As he has been working so hard, can he tell us at what rate he would wish sterling to join the euro?

Mr. Bruce: That is extraordinary. The Government will not even tell us whether they think there should be a rate, but they expect us to tell them what the rate should be. If that is the standard of debate on an issue as serious as this, we are in deep trouble. If that is the sort of leadership that the Government can offer, the country faces a serious problem. We need a more intelligent contribution than that to the debate.
Will the Chief Secretary describe to the House the remit of the new euro preparations committee, which has not yet met, even though its formation was announced four months ago? I understand that all parties may not yet have submitted nominations, but that is no reason to delay consideration of the remit and no reason why the committee should not meet at an early date. Does the Chief Secretary agree that the committee must consider preparations for possible British membership if it is in our interests to join?
To suggest that the euro preparations committee should not be allowed to discuss the possibility of Britain's joining is preposterous. No major party in the House is committed to staying out of the euro for all time—at least not yet. I do not know whether the shadow Chancellor has returned from the Pacific, but, if he withdraws his nominee, as I understand that he has suggested that he might, because the committee's remit is too wide and includes the possibility of Britain's joining, will the Chief Secretary offer the Conservative place to a Tory of a more sensible disposition?
If the Chancellor's five economic tests are to mean anything, will he undertake—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are far too many sedentary interjections from the Government Benches. I should be grateful if they ceased.

Mr. Bruce: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Will the Chancellor undertake to present an annual report to the House on progress towards meeting his tests? Will he allow for a regular debate on the progress being made on convergence? We have suggested that the Bank of England and the Treasury jointly should make half-yearly reports on convergence, stating first the progress that has been made and, secondly, what further steps need to be taken to ensure that convergence continues.
It remains my view that, whether we are in favour of joining at the earliest date, at an early date or in the fairly near future, or not even in the long term, we need to have a sensible strategy for how we are to live with the euro and what sort of exchange rate and interest rate convergence is sensible or necessary. Surely it is reasonable to suggest that we should have a report from the Government. I believe that it would serve to persuade some of us who are somewhat doubtful that the five tests are really relevant to policy. A regular report might clearly define where the Government stand, whereas at present some of us think that the tests are an infinitely elastic excuse for a Government whose policy is being driven by political rather than economic considerations.
There is a wider issue which I hope that my hon. Friends—

Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruce: No. I am moving on.
I hope that my hon. Friends, if they are able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be able to elaborate on this issue later in the debate. It is our belief that the euro could be a huge advantage to Britain economically. It is our belief also that it will be acceptable to the British people only in the context of a Europe which is seen to be open, accountable, democratic and decentralised. We do not believe that it is only the British who take that view; indeed, there is wide support for it.
In that event, we need a Europe in which the nature and the limits of the power of European institutions are clearly defined. As Liberal Democrats, we find it odd that we are about to create a decentralised United Kingdom in circumstances where others are talking about powers that are being dragged unnecessarily to the centre of an excessively centralised European Union. That is not the way in which we see it. That is why we believe in the development of a European constitution, which would define and limit the powers of Europe.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruce: I will in a minute.
I am talking about an idea that appeared in the memoirs of Lord Lawson of Blaby. Although my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) has developed it as a Liberal Democrat view, it is not peculiar to our thinking.

Mr. Bercow: In the Liberal Democrat policy document entitled "Moving Ahead", published in the autumn of 1998, it is claimed on page 106 that the Liberal Democrat party is committed to the retention of the veto on tax matters. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether Liberal Democrats are committed to the retention of the veto in relation to business, savings and personal taxes, or only in relation to personal tax rates?

Mr. Bruce: We meant what we said. We would retain the veto that now exists on tax matters. If there is any doubt in the hon. Gentleman's mind, let me point out that it is our belief that the corollary of a European single currency with a European Central bank and a common rate of interest is that we need tax competition and tax flexibility. We are extremely robust on all three points. We are clear about that.

Mr. James Plaskitt: rose—

Mr. Bruce: No. I am coming towards the end of my remarks.
We need greater accountability on the part of European institutions. It is true that problems in Europe are often much exaggerated by those who have an alternative agenda, but I accept that problems, such as the current fraud issues, exist and that they must be dealt with firmly. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches have reason to be


proud that the European Liberal Democrats are leading the way in trying to bring accountability to Europe and to the Commission. If commissioners have failed to act effectively against fraud, Liberal Democrats believe that they should be held to account. We have no hesitation in saying that they should leave their jobs and in naming and identifying those whom we think should resign. Nobody should be beyond democratic accountability.
Our conclusion is that Britain's role in Europe cannot be allowed to continue under absentee government. That started under the previous Prime Minister and we have not broken away from it adequately. It is surely time for the Government urgently to take a lead on issues in Europe. However, for the Government to be able to give a lead in Europe effectively, they must first lead opinion in Britain—something that they are abjectly failing to do.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
recognises the importance to the British economy of continued membership of the European Community; welcomes the step change that the Government has made in its economic relations with the UK's European partners and the real benefits that constructive engagement has brought for Britain; commends the progress made by the Government in promoting economic reform in Europe as the basis for growth and job creation; welcomes the Government's ongoing programme of practical assistance to British business on the implications of the euro; commends the Bank of England and the financial services industries for the skill and expertise with which they managed Britain's part in the transition of 1st January 1999; and welcomes the Government's decision to make the national economic interest the key test for British entry to the single currency on the basis of five economic tests and that any final decision should be made by the British people as set out in the Chancellor's statement to the House of 27th October 1997.
I thank the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) for his warm welcome for my promotion to my new responsibilities. [Interruption.] I thank also Opposition Members for their support.
On 1 January, the single European currency became a reality. That being so, this is a timely debate. The launch in the dealing rooms and on trading floors across the world was almost flawless. The success of that launch reflects the extent of the planning and preparation carried out by firms and institutions throughout Europe. In London, over the Christmas and new year period, about 30,000 City staff were involved in preparing for the start of euro trading. Those efforts deserve considerable praise and I hope that all hon. Members will join me in paying tribute to all those involved for all of their efforts, and to the crucial role played by the Bank of England. It is thanks to them that London can now rightly claim to be the financial home of the euro, the principal international centre for euro trading.
The hon. Member for Gordon made in large part a serious speech. It deserves serious consideration. It is a shame, therefore, that his speech was so badly flawed by rather flippant and frivolous remarks about my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is an absurd idea that somehow the Government absent themselves from the European debate and the European stage. The hon. Gentleman made rather unfortunate references, for example, to the fact that my right hon. Friend was not in

attendance at the ECOFIN event at the launch of the euro. For information, the ECOFIN meeting was not a decision-making meeting; it was a publicity stunt.
Opposition parties usually spend their time accusing us of engaging rather too much in publicity stunts. I say to the hon. Member for Gordon, purely for information—he may read whatever he wishes into this—that it was not only the United Kingdom Finance Minister who was not present at the meeting; the German Finance Minister was not present either.
Overnight, from 1 January, the euro has become the world's second most important currency. It is now a reality, and not only for the 11 nations that joined the first wave. It is a reality also for the City of London and for the tens of thousands of businesses in our country that trade with Europe day in and day out. Its significance will increase, not diminish.
Europe is becoming more and not less important for Britain. Almost half our trade is with the euro zone, and that trade is increasing. Many companies are already pledged to use the euro regardless of whether Britain is in or out. It is in Britain's economic interest to influence the euro's development and to make it a success whether we are members or not. That is the Government's position. Indeed, the Government's policy on membership of the single currency is unchanged from the position set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to the House in October 1997.
We believe that, if the single European currency is successful, and if the economic benefits to the United Kingdom from joining are clear and unambiguous, Britain should be part of it. We have set out five real economic tests against which Britain's economic interests in relation to the single currency can be judged. The tests define whether a clear and unambiguous case can be made for British entry, and they are: the level of convergence; the flexibility of our economy; the impact on investment; the impact on financial services, including in the City; and, of course, the impact on British jobs.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Does the Minister think that the convergence criteria should be expressed entirely in nominal terms, or should they involve real economic criteria?

Mr. Milburn: We have set out clearly, as we did in October 1997, what is required before a British decision to join. A number of key economic tests have been set, and we require, in particular, a period of stability and sustained convergence. All hon. Members should note what is perhaps most crucial: as the Chancellor made clear in October 1997, our participation—or otherwise—depends not only on what the Government and Parliament decide, but on what the British people decide in a referendum.
We will recommend joining if, and only if, it is in the national economic interest to do so—a decision that will not be possible until early in the next Parliament. Unlike the Conservative party, we do not believe that there is a constitutional bar to membership, but we do believe that the magnitude of the decision to enter requires a referendum of the British people. The British economy is not currently convergent with the rest of Europe.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The House will be pleased to hear the Chief Secretary


reassert the Government's commitment to a referendum. Does he accept, however, that a referendum would be all the more binding if, beforehand, a White Paper were published setting out clearly the constitutional implications and the price to be paid if we join the single currency?

Mr. Milburn: The right hon. Gentleman is an assiduous attender of the House, and I assume that he was present when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor spoke on 27 October 1997, setting out the constitutional issues. My right hon. Friend has said that the pooling of economic sovereignty is, of course, an issue, but it is not a sufficient bar to membership of the European single currency. All that has been covered. The current issue is that of our preparations to ensure that we have a real choice about whether to join. We must consider the requirements around convergence and stability. Since 1 January, the euro is no longer a matter of principle or debate, but a reality for tens of thousands of British businesses which will need help in informing their views about the potential gain from the single currency. Far from absenting ourselves on those issues, the Government are determined to help British business to prepare to trade in the euro.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is that an active or a passive process? Will the Government set out specific measures to achieve convergence over a given time scale that allows a choice of yes or no to be made? Alternatively, will the Government simply sit back and wait to see what happens, and then give us their verdict on whether convergence has happened?

Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman's charge is simply wrong. The Government have demonstrated three forms of leadership on this matter. First, we have provided leadership to ensure that we overcome the boom and bust cycle of the past, particularly during the previous Government's economic policy, and that is in the British interest for the long term. Secondly, we have helped British business to prepare for the reality of dealing with the euro. Thirdly, and in contradiction of what the hon. Gentleman and his party allege in the motion, we have given leadership in Europe on economic reform and other vital matters to do with our national economic interest.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Is it not true that the longer we stay out, the more we shall lose political influence in Europe? Is there not a danger of repeating exactly the same mistake made by every British Government since 1945, Conservative and Labour—missing the boat? We shall pay a political and economic price for that.

Mr. Milburn: In all candour, I must tell my hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest respect, that we must take decisions in the British economic interest. That is the yardstick against which we must judge our decisions. The British economy is not currently in convergence with the rest of Europe. In part, we are at a different stage of the economic cycle, as can be seen from the difference in our interest rates. In part, too, the United Kingdom's current divergence is a legacy of our past susceptibility to boom

and bust, notably during the damaging boom of the late 1980s and the severe recession that followed in the early 1990s.

Mr. David Curry: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Milburn: I shall in a moment, but I have given way several times already and want to make some progress.
Before Britain can be in a position to join, we need a period of preparation and a settled and sustained period of convergence. The Government inherited an economy with serious fundamental weaknesses. The familiar cycle of boom and bust was beginning to reappear. Inflation was rising because the previous Government had failed to take the necessary action. The national debt had been allowed to double, and the public finances were out of control. The Tories claim that all that amounts to a golden economic legacy. The truth is that, in the 18 years under their stewardship, Britain suffered the two worst recessions since the second world war. The UK had one of the highest average inflation rates and below average growth.

Mr. Curry: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Milburn: Not at the moment.
The changes that we have made to the frameworks for monetary and fiscal policy are already delivering results. Low inflation is in line with the Government's target. Politics have been taken out of interest rates with independence for the Bank of England. We have the lowest long-term interest rates in 35 years. The Government are now living within their means, but are still able to invest £40 billion more in our schools and hospitals.
We are promoting greater flexibility in our economy and taking action to close the productivity gap with our competitors. Our new deals for the young and long-term unemployed are bringing fresh hope to communities up and down the country. Today, unemployment figures are down 26,000 on the previous three months, with more than 500,000 more people in work since the election. At a time of economic uncertainty across the world, the Government are giving clear economic leadership at home, steering a course of stability in an unstable and uncertain world.

Mr. Curry: Is the right hon. Gentleman not a little worried that events will move a great deal more rapidly than his stately timetable would suggest? Is there not a danger of the Government's losing control of events here and on the continent? Business needs to know where it stands, and it will increasingly demand to know. The debate on tax and other matters is proceeding in Europe and, to all intents and purposes, the referendum campaign has started. Should the Government not be in control of events, rather than risking the danger of being dragged behind them?

Mr. Milburn: I know the right hon. Gentleman's position on these matters, and I am sure that his Front-Bench colleagues are as interested in his position as I am. However, we are making active preparations to help


business to be ready for the reality of the euro, and, before we can make any decision on whether to join, we must decide what is in the British economic interest. That was our position in October 1997, and it is our position now.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I offer my compliments to my right hon. Friend on his promotion.
In my right hon. Friend's opening remarks, he noted that 11 European Union member states have signed up to the single currency. That leaves four outside the euro. Are the other three member states adopting criteria similar to those that the Government have adopted in relation to joining? Is there any likelihood that, over the next few years, the United Kingdom will become the odd man out if the other three nations sign up?

Mr. Milburn: Frankly, those are decisions for the individual member states, just as we have to decide what is best for the British interest. That is our responsibility and that is their responsibility. I do not want to speak for other member states. I am keen to ensure that decisions taken here ensure that the British economic interest comes first.

Mr. Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Milburn: I will not give way for a moment.
Therefore, we are giving clear leadership at home and, in answer to the hon. Member for Gordon, we are giving leadership by helping business to prepare for the euro. For business, the euro is a fact of life. Some people, notably right hon. and hon. Gentleman on the Conservative Front Bench would wish it away. Others wish that it would arrive sooner. Neither view is right for Britain.
Instead, the Government, in partnership with business, are helping British firms to come to terms with the new economic landscape that the euro has brought. In the past year, the Government have stepped up work with British companies to help to equip them to do business in the euro. Our nationwide information campaign has increased, by 150 per cent. since the general election, the number of small businesses that have made preparations for the euro.
The hon. Member for Gordon asked whether the Government had any plans to change the inflation target from RPIX to the harmonised index of consumer prices. As we have repeatedly said, we will monitor the target and the measure of inflation in the light of the practices of the European central bank. That is precisely what we are doing, but the United Kingdom is under no legal requirement to change our target measure of inflation to the harmonised European index, which the central bank has adopted.
Also, we will shortly publish an outline national changeover plan to set out the key steps that would need to be taken by business and the public sector to facilitate British entry into the euro, should we decide to enter.
Finally, the hon. Member for Gordon raised the important issue of the euro preparations committee. He is aware, as is the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on the Conservative Front Bench, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the

Exchequer wrote to all parties in November, asking them for nominations to that important committee. We have received nominations from all of the parties. The Chancellor wrote again last week, and I hope that all the parties represented in the House will take a responsible and positive attitude towards the committee, but time will tell.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Milburn: I will not give way.
The Government want the single currency to succeed because it is in Britain's economic interests for it to do so. The prosperity of the British economy, both in manufacturing and in services, is closely linked to the euro's success. Those preparations are vital, too, if Britain is to have a genuine choice about joining the single currency.
The Government are providing leadership not only on the economy and on preparations for the euro, but in Europe too, by working in alliance with our European partners on a wide-ranging programme of economic reform. It is simply not true to say that, just because Britain is out of the euro, we are unable to shape developments in the European Union. The progress made under our presidency is clear evidence of that. A successful euro is one based on sound economics and markets that function well. Those ideas lie at the heart of the Government's agenda in Europe. Britain is playing a key role in taking them forward.
That is the Government's position on Europe and it is based on common sense, not narrow partisan ideology—national economic interest, not party interest. It is a principled position, which puts the national economic interest first.
Let us contrast the Government's policy with the position of the two major Opposition parties. On the one hand, the Liberals are prepared to say yes to joining the euro at any time, at any price. On the other, the Conservative party is prepared to say no to joining the euro—no at any price. We see uncritical support from the Liberals and uncritical opposition from the Tories. They are united only in their irresponsibility—an irresponsible neglect of the national economic interest.
The Liberals irresponsibly disregard the national economic interest for the sake of cloud-cuckoo economics. To join the single currency early, without the necessary convergence or preparations, would be a recipe for more, not less, instability.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Where are the preparations?

Mr. Milburn: I have just set some of them out.
The Liberal's position would be a classic mistake—seeking short-term solutions, rather than long-term solutions for long-term gain. It would be damaging for Britain and, frankly, for Europe. We need a period of stability and we need to have demonstrated sustainable convergence with the other European economies before we can join. That is yet another example of the same old fantasy economics from the Liberals, and now they want to halve Britain's interest rates overnight, without any regard for the state of the economic cycle or, indeed, the consequences for fiscal policy. Theirs is an economic


policy without the slightest grounding in reality—an irresponsible policy that is totally against Britain's economic interests.
At the other extreme stand Her Majesty's official Opposition, the Conservative party. From the Conservatives, we see only a pursuit of their narrow party interest at the expense of the national interest. They have ruled out membership of monetary union for 10 years, even if it were in Britain's national economic interest to join before then. It is an arbitrary policy, which closes down the options available to this country. It ignores our national economic interest.
These are the questions that the shadow Chief Secretary must answer. If the Conservatives' hostility to a single currency is one of principle, why not rule it out for ever? If it is pragmatic opposition, how can they rule it out for 10 years even if it is in Britain's interest to join? Having moved so far to the right, today's Tory party is simply anti-Europe. The real agenda of that party is withdrawal from Europe altogether, with all the damage that that would do to British interests, jobs and future British economic prosperity. Indeed, the hysteria in the Tory party is such that the shadow Trade and Industry Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—a man not known for his temperate views—was compelled to say at one point:
If we sign the present draft of the Amsterdam Treaty we will abolish our country.
The truth is that the Conservative party is backward looking, with no vision of the future for our country. Meanwhile, a serious debate is going on in Europe about its direction. The Tories would isolate us from that debate, damaging Britain, the British economy, British business and British jobs. They are failing in opposition, just as they failed in government.
In contrast, the Government are working with our partners to shape Europe's future. The days of foghorn diplomacy—of shouting, but not being heard—are over. As the lifting of the beef ban shows, we can do more for Britain by working constructively in Europe. That approach—the Government's approach—goes with the grain of our history as a trading nation. Those who would turn Britain into an economic fortress are not only living in a dream world, but turning their backs on our history of commercial success over hundreds of years. Britain has always prospered best when we have led and looked outward. The Government are determined that we will help shape Europe's future, just as we have helped to shape its past. I commend the Government's amendment to the House.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: This is the first time that the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) has appeared at the Dispatch Box in his new job. I congratulate him on attaining that position, which carries great responsibility. I hope that he lasts a bit longer than his two predecessors and I look forward to many exchanges with him about these and other issues.
The background to this debate is not simply the launch of the euro, although the Chief Secretary's speech concentrated on that. In the European Parliament, events of great importance are unfolding, with the possibility of a censure motion against the entire European Commission. That tells us something about the European

Union and how the drive towards the big projects of political integration and the launch of a single European currency have sidelined other matters of equal importance, such as whether taxpayers' money is being properly applied. That should have engaged his attention; it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce).
Fraud should worry the Treasury; not only is the general European taxpayer at risk, but the British taxpayer is disproportionately affected because of our very large annual contributions. They fluctuate from year to year for technical reasons but, averaged out, our gross contribution is nearly £18 million a day. We get some back—not necessarily for projects that we would choose to spend the money on—but our net contribution still runs at nearly £7 million every day. It was therefore doubly surprising that the Chief Secretary managed an entire speech on our relationship with the European Union, and our economic relationship in particular, without mentioning fraud and mismanagement.
The issue is not new. I am afraid that fraud and mismanagement are endemic in the European Union at all levels, and in the European Commission in particular. The European Court of Auditors produces a report every year itemising the scandalous waste and mismanagement of the European Union budget. I raise the matter now because of the debate that is taking place in the European Parliament and tomorrow's vote. I note that the problem is not new but the present revelations are interesting because they have come not from the European Commission, the Court of Auditors or member states, but from a Dutch official who blew the whistle and was promptly disciplined by his employer, the European Commission.
My point is relevant to the debate because, last year, the British presidency had an opportunity to do something about fraud and mismanagement. Indeed, at its start exactly a year ago, the Prime Minister and the Treasury announced that that was a British priority. Yet again, a huge gap has opened between what the Government said and what they did, between the rhetoric and the reality. For instance, spending on anti-fraud measures fell last year. One of the first things that the then Economic Secretary did, both last year and directly after the general election, was to tell European Standing Committee B that there would be a sharp reduction in the amount spent on anti-fraud measures. For greater accuracy, I have the figures.
In the internal market, industry and trans-European network, which is a huge item of expenditure, the sum allocated to anti-fraud measures—a tiny proportion of the overall sum—fell from 19.9 million ecu to 4.4 million ecu. At the same time, the Treasury and the Government were telling us how important they thought the drive against fraud and mismanagement was.
Exactly the same will happen next year. Expenditure on all the other programmes will go up but expenditure on anti-fraud measures will go down. That has now been spotted by the Select Committee on European Legislation, which reported to the House last July that the total budgetary provision for anti-fraud measures will drop next year by a further 20 million euros—a drop of nearly a third—on top of the drop the year before. When the Treasury was challenged about it, all that Ministers could


say was that it did not matter because the rest of the Commission's budget would be directed to anti-fraud measures.
That is not the experience of Mr. Buitenen, the Dutch official faced with dismissal for blowing the whistle on the fraud and mismanagement at the heart of the Commission. The matter is very serious because he reports that, far from the Commission using its budget and making efforts to control fraud, it is part of the problem. It was not surprising that the Select Committee on European Legislation concluded its review of what the British Government were doing on fraud by saying that it was not convinced or impressed by the Minister's argument that a reduction of 20 million euros in the budgetary allocation did not imply a reduction in the effectiveness of the anti-fraud effort. I hope that Minister will tell us her attitude to the fraud and mismanagement in the budget, and what she is doing about it, because it is our taxpayers' money, which was voted by this House, that is being stolen and mismanaged.
I concede that it is not simply a question of spending money on anti-fraud efforts, but of political will. We therefore turned with some interest to the document "A New European Way", which was published last October by the socialist and social democratic Ministers of Finance in the European Union. It was reported that the Labour party had a prominent input. It is full of the usual waffle about a people's Europe. There are descriptions of all the wonderful things that can be done with the European budget—more trans-European networks and all the rest of it. There is not a single line, word or mention of fraud or mismanagement. All that stuff during the European presidency about how it was a priority—for the Treasury, I think that it was the priority—did not get translated into action during the British presidency, or in the document published by the left-of-centre Finance Ministers last October. That is eloquent testimony to what the Labour Government really think about fraud in the European Union and its institutions.
The reason for all this is that the Government are so anxious to fit into the European Union scene that they do not want to be accused of doing anything that might discredit the EU. We are well past that. The days when it could all be covered up so as not to startle the public are long past. The public know perfectly well what is going on and want something done about it. The European Parliament socialist group is manoeuvring to keep individual Commissioners from being singled out and asked to resign.

Mr. Lock: Do the right hon. Gentleman's views about the public knowing what is going on extend to his former colleague Mr. Phillip Oppenheim's description of the shadow Cabinet as consisting of donkeys, too many old faces, too many debts from the leadership election; in short, too many sad reminders of unhappy times past. Is that what the public are well aware of?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Is that really the best that Labour can come up with? I advise the hon. Gentleman to have another go. This is a debate about the European Union. It is telling, and will have been noted by my hon. Friends, that Labour has nothing to say about the

European Union and no defence to what I was saying about slashing anti-fraud measures or about the attitude of his colleagues in the European Parliament socialist group. They are clearly more interested in protecting individual socialist commissioners than in protecting the European taxpayer.
It has been left to the right of centre group, the European People's party, and, in particular, Conservative Members of the European Parliament, who have been doing what they can to strengthen the procedures against fraud in the EU, to get something done and, in particular, to stop the Commission and its employees hiding behind diplomatic immunity.

Mr. David Heath: I hope very much that British Conservative Members of the European Parliament will support the motion of censure tabled by my colleague, Pat Cox, in the European Parliament tomorrow. However, I hear that the Christian Democrat group is doing a deal with the socialist group in order to back Jacques Santer. Is that correct?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman wants to look at the voting record, he will have to wait until tomorrow evening. But in the few short weeks after these revelations first became clear, the Conservative group in the European Parliament has done more to strip away the diplomatic immunity than the European Parliament socialist group, with all its waffle and posturing. Therefore, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we and our colleagues in the European Parliament do not just talk about this, we do something about it.
I, too, wish to congratulate all those in Britain who worked over the new year on the launch of the new currency in order to make it stable and successful. I was rather surprised by the tone of the exchanges was between the hon. Member for Gordon and the Chief Secretary. They were hardly in the spirit of the new alliance about which we keep reading, or at least pressed so strongly by the leaders of their respective parties. It is early in the new year, but all the festive spirit appears to have worn off. That is particularly so in that they have been squabbling about essentially constitutional matters.
The joint Cabinet Committee on those matters is not new. Throughout last year, the Liberal Democrats sat on a Government Sub-Committee discussing constitutional matters. One would have thought that, by now, they would have come to some kind of agreement, or at least a meeting of minds. Very sharp differences have again been exposed today.
We know—I think it is beyond dispute—that joining the euro will mean a massive and irreversible transfer of decision making from people who are elected and can be removed at home, to people who are not elected and cannot be removed in the institutions of the EU. That is practically a definition of a constitutional issue.
The Liberal Democrats welcome that. They cannot wait to give away those powers. For them, the creation of a European economic and political state is desirable, and they cannot get to it soon enough. The Labour party position seems to be simply to deny that that is ever likely to happen. That is again demonstrated by the amendment. The only tests that it raises for consideration of British entry are the five economic tests. There is not a word here about any constitutional implications.

Mr. Hogg: Is not another indication of the lack of importance that the Chief Secretary attaches to the


constitutional issues his refusal to commit the Government to publishing a White Paper on the constitutional implications of the single currency as a prelude to holding the referendum?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Conservative Members understand that it is not good enough simply to talk about economic tests, because joining a single European currency and giving up sterling is not just a question of changing the face on the bank notes; it is about a transfer of powers. That is a constitutional matter. We are owed an explanation and a promise that, before we go any further, a White Paper at the very least will be published and presented to the House.
A useful feature of the creation and launch of the euro on 1 January this year is that it has been accompanied by some candid remarks from other EU politicians about precisely these constitutional implications. It is clear that the launch of the new currency signals a new drive towards political and economic integration.

Mrs. Angela Browning: The Chief Secretary said in his closing remarks that a serious debate is going on in Europe about this, but does my right hon. Friend agree that much of that debate is about constitutional matters, and yet not only was the constitution argument not mentioned tonight, or simply dismissed, but the Government have actively tried to suppress debate on it?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government do not know whether to deny that or ignore it, but it is taking place. We in Britain sometimes pride ourselves on the quality of our debate on those matters, but we are wrong. In many respects, a more honest debate is taking place on the continent, where it is freely admitted that there are those constitutional implications. They know that, at root, it is a political project.

Mr. Bercow: Further to what our hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) has just said, does my right hon. Friend recall, in talking about the constitutional issues, that the former Spanish Prime Minister, Felipe González, writing in May of this year, quite explicitly said:
The single currency is the greatest abandonment of national sovereignty since the foundation of the European Community.
He went on to support it, saying:
We need this united Europe. We must never forget that the euro is an instrument for this project.
Would it not be a useful addition to the reading list of the Chief Secretary to have a collection of the former Spanish Prime Minister's speeches in his red box?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. There is an essential deceit at the core of the Government's position on the euro in that it denies that this is at root a political project.

Mr. Plaskitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will the hon. Gentleman excuse me? I want to make progress and I am aware that other hon. Members want to contribute in due course.

When the German Finance Minister, Mr. Lafontaine, announced last year moves towards tax harmonisation, he was dismissed by the Government as someone who was simply making a private contribution to the debate, even though, as we know, a British Treasury Minister is chairing the EU committee which is charged with eradicating what is called unfair tax competition. I would say in passing that that committee's proceedings are secret. We know that British taxes are under scrutiny by an EU committee chaired by a Treasury Minister, but the House is not allowed to know about it.
We know from leaks that more than 80 tax measures are under consideration, and some of them are British, but the House, which was founded on the supposition that we alone control taxation, is not allowed to know which taxes are under consideration.

Mr. Plaskitt: rose—

Mr. Bill Rammell: rose—

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), and then perhaps to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt).

Mr. Rammell: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly exercised about the committee. How, in principle, is that different from the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont, negotiating and agreeing the standardisation of VAT rates, as he did in 1991?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Everything that Lord Lamont did was public. The position that he was taking was well known. We had debates in the House about it. That is the difference. We had an opportunity to comment and to vote. In the committee on unfair tax competition, a secret agenda is being drawn up to reverse tax measures passed by the House, some of them in this Government's first Budget. For example, it is rumoured that concessions to the British film industry are now under consideration. They were passed by the House less than 18 months ago, but they now fall foul of the rule against unfair tax competition.
It is not only tax harmonisation that is being considered in Europe. The German Foreign Minister is saying that the European Union should now proceed by majority voting in all areas except important treaty changes. I suppose that the Government will now dismiss him as a deranged individual speaking solely in a private capacity, but he and others are speaking the truth. I do not dismiss German and French Ministers as people who are simply speculating about their private desires and priorities; they are speaking on behalf of their Government and, in the case of the German Minister, after a recent general election, so they are right to highlight the eventual destination of the euro project. It is only the Government who are fooling themselves and trying to fool the public that that is not the case.

Mr. Plaskitt: If, as the right hon. Gentleman makes out, those considerations are all constitutional impediments to sterling's entry to the euro zone, how does he imagine they will dissolve in 10 years?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: They probably will not dissolve. It is likely that, when tax harmonisation becomes


a reality rather than just an aim, that will be a further objection for Parliament and the British people to consider before they make up their mind. The Government's object is to smuggle matters through before they become clear and their implications are fully understood.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way. I promised that I would make progress and I want to cover one more area of policy.
My essential point is that the Government face big issues on taxation in Europe, budgetary reform, the future voting system in Europe and monetary and economic integration, and there is a wide and growing gap between other member states' ambitions and what this country wants and what the Government say that they want. That is where self-delusion sets in. They honestly believe that they can head off all those powerful forces even though those forces are specifically promoted by France, Germany and almost all the other European Union member states.
Rather than confronting the issues, the Government are simply ignoring them because they do not want to be isolated. They are terrified of losing what they call influence, but the best influence that we have in the European Union comes, not from going along with what the EU proposes, but from our example. By avoiding the job-destroying regulations in the European Union and by not harmonising our taxes upwards to European Union rates, over the past few years this country has created jobs as fast as EU countries have been destroying them. That is the golden economic legacy that the Chief Secretary referred to in his speech, and we are proud of it.
The hon. Member for Gordon referred to the exchange rate. When will the Government come clean about their policy on the exchange rate? They smuggled out a document shortly before Christmas about the convergence programme, but they owe an explanation to the House. I have read the document, and it does not broach the issue of the treaty requirement for us to join an exchange rate mechanism as a prior condition to joining the euro. The treaty requirement is not that Britain should have joined the original exchange rate mechanism—that collapsed in 1993. The obligation remains. The decision cannot wait until after a referendum because that is when the Government would want to join the euro. They must start the process now.
Questions to the Government remain. Will the Chancellor decide that we should shadow the euro, and if so, when? The document contains only the usual waffle about exchange rate stability being a product of domestic and macro-economic stability. We all know that, but it does not answer the question of what the Government will do about the fact that they are committed in principle to joining the euro but there is a precondition that they must shadow or join a exchange rate mechanism with the euro.
We want to know—the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), who will reply to the debate, will be able to tell us—whether

the Treasury representative on the Monetary Policy Committee is now being told to make that precondition a consideration in setting interest rates. In other words, will interest rates increasingly be set to suit, not domestic economic requirements, but external requirements? That information should not be published or hinted at in a document placed in the Library; it ought to be explained to the House. The matter goes to the heart of how we control the domestic economy.
As the Government are committed in principle to the huge and irrevocable step to give up our domestic currency and join the euro, why are they so shy about hinting at or explaining the need to shadow the euro or join an exchange rate mechanism? That step could be reversed. Why are they so timid about taking the first steps when they are already committed to the final destination?

Mr. Öpik: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall give way briefly.

Mr. Öpik: I want to ask a short question. Am I to deduce from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Conservative bar to entry is cast in stone until 2008?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I am pointing out the self-evident truth that there are not only economic and financial matters to be assessed but constitutional questions. The Liberal Democrats at least accept that those constitutional changes are desirable, but the Government are denying that they are even considerations. That is a deceitful attitude, which I am exposing in this brief debate. We want to be assured, not only that there are economic advantages beyond dispute, but that those constitutional objections can be answered and overcome. The more that we learn about those constitutional issues, the more distasteful the entire project will seem.
We have heard in the debate that the Government are facing hard choices on Europe. Their response, on Europe and other measures, is to avoid those choices. As we have seen over the past few weeks, the Government spend a good deal of time fighting among themselves, but that is not an excuse. We now want them to turn outwards and start to answer questions about our relationship with the European Union.
This week, there has already been a relaunch of policies, which is always a sign that a Government are in deep trouble. Rather than relaunching or rehashing previously announced policies—many of them inherited from us—let the Government tell us how they intend to tackle the issues on Europe. Will they start to tell us the truth about what is on offer in the European Union and to govern on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom rather than in the interests of the Labour party?

Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush): In this debate on the role of the United Kingdom in Europe, I want to deal with a wider issue than the one that has so far been addressed—the euro. Before I do so, I shall make a few comments about Liberal Democrat and Conservative contributions.
I say to the Liberal Democrats that it is an untenable position to argue so fervently in favour of entering the euro without taking into account the economic cycle. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) kept avoiding that point. There is obviously a case for trying to bring economies into line, but the last Conservative Government tried to do that; the Liberal Democrats would try to do so and the Government are trying to do so. However, the British economy has tracked the north American economy since the second world war more closely than it has tracked European economies and, for that reason, it is difficult to find a phase during which we could join the euro when it would not do devastating damage to the British economy. I believe that it can and will be done, but it is foolish to believe that it is possible to ignore the point of the economic cycle at which we join. No one will take the Liberal party seriously if it continues to argue on that basis without taking that point into account.

Mr. Edward Davey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the United Kingdom economy has closely tracked the main European economies since the war, contrary to what he says, except during a short period after the second oil shock?

Mr. Soley: I do not think that that is right. One can quibble about the figures. That is another argument and, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue it, I shall be happy to do so on another occasion. Overall, the British economy has been more likely to track the north American one.
I would find it easier to accept the criticisms voiced by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) about the Government's direction if I had not sat through the Conservatives' history in the past 15 years. I remember Baroness Thatcher joining the single market with enthusiasm. I, among others, said at the time that, once we joined the single market, it would be only a matter of time before we had a single currency. I remember the Conservative party firmly nailing into place the Single European Act—an Act that required us to follow the legislation that came from Brussels, albeit with the intervention and involvement of British Ministers. One knew then that we were speeding up on the road towards European integration.
I remember, as Conservative Members will remember only too clearly, the way in which the previous Conservative Government drove through the Maastricht Bill. One does not have to go back to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who, as leader of the Conservative party, took the country into Europe, to see how Conservative Governments have enthusiastically taken us down the road towards greater European integration. Baroness Thatcher and the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) did the same.
There is only one explanation for Conservative Members' present position. Either they did not know what would happen, in which case they were incredibly naive and were shutting their ears to what everyone else was saying, or they knew but have now changed their minds. If they would start their interventions by saying that they have changed their minds, it would be much easier to accept their criticisms.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Does he accept that it is not especially surprising

that, at the time of the Single European Act, a great many people from all parties did not know, and could not be expected to know, that it would be used as a vehicle for a massive programme of harmonisation, the effect of which would be deeply damaging to British industry?

Mr. Soley: It is entirely possible that they did not know, but one has to assume that such people were incredibly naive. One Conservative Member, for whom I have some respect, has said to me that he did not realise the implications at the time. At least he was straightforward about it. Harmonisation has always been the agenda of the continental European countries. They have never really hidden that. People have mentioned it at one time or another in the past 20 years, so it was not a secret. I think, however, that some people did not want to hear what was being said. One of the problems is Britain's ambivalence towards Europe.
I want to talk about the wider role of the United Kingdom because the Liberal motion is curious. The Liberals talk about widening the United Kingdom's role in Europe, but then focus on the narrow, although admittedly important, issue of the euro. There are many other important issues in relation to Britain's role in Europe and we ought to face them now if we are not to repeat the same old British mistake of addressing current and past issues instead of looking ahead to the shape and form that Europe will take in 20 years' time. We need to have a longer vision.
Perhaps I could put my comments in context, not by repeating what I have said on previous occasions in the House but by reminding the House of why Britain is ambivalent about Europe. It is important to understand why. At times, we say that Britain missed the bus, for example, at the 1957 conference at Messina, but we forget that Britain's reasons for being more ambivalent about Europe than almost any other European country have a good basis in reality. The first is that we are an island nation with a separate island culture. The second is that we have close links with the wider world, not only in the Commonwealth but in the English-speaking world. British people regard north America, Australia and other countries as closer to home than Europe. The third reason is, in a sense, a dying reason. Britain was the only major country in Europe not to be defeated and occupied in two world wars. That has produced almost a schizophrenic attitude among British people.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and Lord Healey are two people who, having experienced the war, came to the conclusion that the best thing for Britain was to be part of Europe so that war was less possible. The other side of that argument, which is the one that I was brought up with as a child, was that Europe spelt trouble and that was the direction from which the bombers came. If we ignore the factors that cause Britain to have a somewhat ambivalent relationship with Europe, we do not do ourselves a service or help ourselves to move forward.
The wider issue that I want to talk about is the British role in Europe. It is true that we have missed the bus on a number of issues. It is true that, on the euro, we are behind the others, although, under my right hon. Friends in the Government, we are catching up rapidly. However, there are some areas of policy in which we can take a lead. I would have been more encouraged if the Liberal party had given more time to them. One such area is foreign policy.
The curious thing about European development is that, a few years ago, we took a leap that could have moved us towards dealing with some of the crises around the frontiers of Europe, which we had proved ourselves unable to do before without United States help. The classic example was Bosnia. Everyone in Europe looked on in horror at what was happening and said that it should stop, but did not know how to do that. We did something that to my knowledge we had not done before. We appointed in effect a special envoy in the form of Dr. David Owen. One can argue whether he was the best person for the job, but he acted as a special envoy. [Interruption.] I know that he was a problem for the Liberal party, too.
The tragedy was that, because there was no backing in terms of a European foreign policy or a defence intervention, Dr. Owen was unable to enforce what Europe wanted to enforce in Bosnia. The whole of Europe sat back in horror looking at what was happening in that former Yugoslav country and we were able to intervene only when the United States took the lead. That is the reality and we all know it. It was a formative experience for people who now think about where Europe will be in 20 years.
The Soviet Union has collapsed and there are a number of unstable states around the borders of the European Union. Will we sit back and do nothing when such situations develop again? Will we try to intervene in a way that enables us to contain the situation? Or will we simply call across the water to the United States and say, "Please come in and help"?
The ambivalence about Britain's role within Europe can be advantageous to us. We have positive and close links with the United States, and always will have. Those links are not equivalent to a special relationship in an academic sense; the special relationship is our common language, culture and history, which gives us an advantage. Although many Europeans resent it, quite a few of them recognise that Britain's relationship with the wider world—particularly with north America, which is the dominant world power—is positive and could form the basis of a more effective way of dealing with future crises.
I am sorry that the Liberals have addressed that matter only in the title and the tail-end of their motion. The frightening issue for Europe is not whether the euro will work, but what happens in Russia, and we all know it. Almost every Member of Parliament is concerned about whether Russia will remain a stable power or whether, to use a simplistic historical analogy, it is in the Weimar Republic phase. If it is, Europe had better have some way of coping with that.
We should think carefully about the proposal to re-introduce special envoys and appoint the first one to Russia to help the Russians to deal with their current problems in a way that preserves democracy in a country with no history of democracy, and no stability either. The development of the use of special envoys in areas where force is not needed to back up that initiative, the lack of which was a failing in Bosnia, could be a positive step forward in helping Russia.
The use of such envoys could also be considered in the middle east. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office has done a great deal

to assert Britain's role there, but Britain has an interesting opportunity. We have knowledge of the Arab world's needs, and of the needs of Israel, and long and intimate involvement with both. Continental European countries are reluctant to get tough with Israel, not least because of the history of anti-Semitism in Europe. We do not carry that baggage.
The United States has a different position and, inevitably, is biased towards Israel. Britain and the European countries could operate a more even-handed approach between Israel and the Arabs. Until we achieve that, we will not get a peaceful outcome in the middle east.
There is a role for Europe and, more importantly, a leadership role for Britain. We should build on the special envoy approach and Britain's recent history as the world's dominant power to develop the European-style foreign policy, which recognises the separate parts of Europe, but also recognises the desperately important common interest in maintaining stability round the borders of Europe and dealing with questions such as Russia.
No hon. Member will sit lightly in the Chamber in five, 10 or 15 years if Russia has descended into authoritarianism and is a right-wing, nationalistic state with ambitions to reclaim the empire that it has lost. No one should underestimate the importance of nationalist feeling in Russia at the moment.

Mrs. Browning: I agree with a lot of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not understand why it would be necessary for independent nation states to give up their sovereignty within the European Union to achieve a common foreign policy instead of doing so on the basis of agreement. That arrangement has worked within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for many years. Why should states give up sovereignty, and why should we hand over power from this House?

Mr. Soley: This is a matter of pooled sovereignty, but, to answer to the hon. Lady, Richard Holbrooke, the United States mediator in the Balkans simply said, "The problem with Europe is that I do not know who to phone." It was impossible to get agreement within Europe about what to do, which is why a special envoy is important. We may not have been able to intervene with military force in former Yugoslavia because we did not have the necessary degree of agreement, but it is possible to intervene more diplomatically in areas such as Russia and the middle east without using military force.
We may decide to develop that potential. My view is that that is now inevitable, partly because of decisions taken by the previous Government to move Britain further into Europe. Whether we like that reality or not, we must face up to this issue: beyond the borders of the relatively small group of stable and democratic European countries, there is an unstable circumference towards which we must have a policy. We cannot go on ignoring that issue. I am sorry that it has not been addressed a little more in the Liberal motion, because we must take it much more seriously.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Like the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), I wish to deal with the second part of the motion—the character of the European Union.

Mr. Edward Davey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to discuss the euro.

Mr. Hogg: No, I do not particularly want to talk about the euro. I want to discuss what I think is more important—the essential character of the European Union.
Having participated in many debates within and regarding the European Union, I have reached the clear conclusion that, as it is currently constituted, the European Union is a profoundly undemocratic and unaccountable institution. I draw upon as much experience in that matter as anyone currently in the House. I have attended very many European Union Councils, including the Telecommunications Council, the Research and Development Council, the Industry Council, the Foreign Affairs Council and, most latterly, the Agriculture Council. I have also attended many ad hoc councils. Some general conclusions can he drawn from that experience; my most marked conclusion is that it is an extremely undemocratic process.
To illustrate that, I shall take the example of the Agriculture Council because that is the one that I attended most recently. The Agriculture Council's decisions impact substantially on Europe as a whole because of the budgetary implications. They also directly affect the interests of our constituents. The decisions that come out of the Agriculture Council—or any council, for that matter—are neither democratic nor accountable in the sense that this House understands those terms. Policy proposals are made by the Commission. They are often made late, a day or two before the hearing of the Council, without much external examination or inquiry. They are presented to Ministers, many of whom have only a slight understanding of the technical issues involved. The issues are discussed late at night and are the subject of fudge, brokered agreements and private deals. There is little accountability on the part of either the Ministers involved or the Commission for the decisions that are taken. That process is profoundly unsatisfactory and wrong.
What is true of the Councils is also true, to an extent, of the other EU institutions, whether the Commission or the Court. The Commission instigates legislation, but, if we were honest about it, we would recognise that there is no transparency about the process as a result of which it makes its decisions. There is secrecy in its deliberations and about its appointments, and almost no control over its activities.
I regret to say that the same is true of the European Court—and I speak as a lawyer. The court is in the business of driving forward the interpretation of treaties well beyond the point that is reasonable, and certainly well beyond the point ever contemplated by the treaty makers. Therefore, as representatives of an elected body and members of a democratic country, we must recognise that what we have created, and the body to which we give ever-increasing powers, is profoundly undemocratic and does not have the characteristics that we would expect of nations seeking to join the European Union.
That is a bleak summary, but it is not far from the truth.

Mr. Davey: I share many of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concerns about lack of democracy and accountability in the European Union. What measures did

his Government propose while he was in office to improve democracy and accountability in the European Union?

Mr. Hogg: I do not want to be diverted because this is a serious but short debate, and I want to focus on the major issues. I want to express the consequences of what I have tried to explain to the House.
We must ask ourselves, as representatives of a democratic body, either what can we do or what is likely to happen. We flatter ourselves if we ask ourselves what can we do, because, I regret to say, our ability to shape the future is remarkably slight. That being so, it is more pertinent to ask ourselves what is likely to happen. To start with, in an ideal world, two things could happen. I must say that I believe that neither will. One is that member states will be able to recover some of the powers that they have ceded to the European Union, and the other is that we shall be able to create effective democratic controls which satisfy the representatives of member states.
I do not believe that it is possible to recover that which has been given to the European Union. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) in her place. She will remember fisheries policy. That is but an illustration, and not direct in point. The fisheries regime is a disaster for British fishermen, but it is, in effect, impossible to undo. We created that structure and we are living with the consequences.

Mr. Bercow: I entirely agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said. Does he agree that the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the treaty of Amsterdam confirm the truth of what he is saying and make absolutely clear that the doctrines of the occupied field and of the acquis communautaire are unchallengeable?

Mr. Hogg: Yes, that is completely right. The concept of acquis communautaire is very important in this context.
The other question that I posed, to which I would like to respond, is whether it is possible effectively to create more genuine democratic controls in the EU. I am speaking only of the present; things may change and evolve. Let us be candid about what we are debating. Effective democratic controls can be created only if an effective Parliament, with powers that are analogous to member states' powers in their domestic assemblies, is created. I do not believe that that is possible at this moment for this reason: for there to be an effective Parliament, there must be an effective concept of statehood. There must be an identity of interest sufficient for people in the United Kingdom to accept the imposition of policies on which representatives of other member states vote, which they may see to be injurious to our interests. After all, it is difficult enough in the UK for the people of Scotland to accept the decisions of the United Kingdom Parliament, given that it can often be said that it represents the partial interests of England.

Mr. Davey: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: Not quite yet.
That being so, how much greater will it be to ask the peoples of the United Kingdom to accept the decisions, say, of the representatives of Greece, Iberian countries and Italy? I do not say that pejoratively; I am simply describing political reality. The conclusion is that, in the foreseeable future, we shall not have a concept of statehood—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not mean any discourtesy, but he has a habit of turning his back on the Chair.

Mr. Hogg: I apologise; I was turning my back on you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will forgive me. I was addressing my hon. Friends. The rebuke is accepted, and I am very glad that you have raised the point.
The point that I was making, if I may address you directly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that I do not think that, in the foreseeable future, there will be a concept of statehood, an identity of interest, that will enable us to create and put in place an effective set of democratic controls.

Mr. Davey: I have been following the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument very closely. He makes an important point on whether we need a concept of statehood before we can move ahead with greater democracy in the EU. Will he reflect on the concept of statehood in the minds of those who drafted the federalist papers in the United States of America in the 18th century? Does he believe that they had a concept of statehood before they developed an agreement to work together for the economic and social benefit of their peoples?

Mr. Hogg: I do not believe that it is possible to impose an entirely integrated state on the peoples of Europe unless it is underpinned by consent, and I do not believe that consent would exist without a genuine sense of statehood.
I accept that the picture that I have painted is somewhat bleak, but I have not concluded that we should leave the European Union, although, in certain circumstances, I might reach such a conclusion. We should, however, ask ourselves what we should do, given a fairly bleak assessment of the facts.
First, we must communicate our anxieties to the peoples and Governments of Europe. They are well founded and worth communicating, and they need to be defended and justified as arguments. I do not believe that we should embark on any further policies to deepen the integration of Europe unless they are underpinned by genuine consent. I am thinking in particular of the single currency. Unless there is genuine consent in the country, manifested by the result of a referendum, we must not join a single currency.
In the European Union, there will be many occasions on which other member states wish to proceed with projects to deepen the process of integration, with which we do not wish to be associated. In such circumstances, we should stand aside and refuse to join. There will be a

price to pay, in terms of less influence than might otherwise exist; but, ultimately, a judgment must be reached. Personally, I would accept less influence in the European Community rather than paying the price represented by the alternative—the loss of much more sovereignty in return for, perhaps, a little more say.
I view the future with considerable concern. What I have sketched is a bleak scenario. I believe that the process leading to greater integration is now irreversible; I do not think that the House, the Government or anyone else will be able to stand in its way. I think that the chance of effectively reinforcing the democratic restraints in Europe and creating democratic structures that mean something are very small, and I anticipate greater integration without proper control. At that point, there is a grave danger of disintegration. It may be triggered by the single currency: I believe that is precisely the sort of issue that might trigger disintegration. If that happens, the duty of Governments, of parties and of the House is to recreate arrangements that retain much of what is valued in the European Union, while avoiding the dangers that are inherent in a state that is too integrated and too closely combined.
I am against a united states of Europe, and I believe that the feeling of the House is against it as well. I condemn the Government for smuggling the process in.

Ms Tess Kingham: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I, too, wish to concentrate on the latter part of the motion, which asks for an open, democratic and accountable European Union and open, democratic and accountable European institutions. In doing so, I shall focus on two separate but related questions. The first relates to the way in which the EU aid budget is allocated and prioritised; the second relates to the wider role of the EU. I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) about the role of the EU in the wider world, and the need to ensure that peace continues in the Mediterranean and north African region. I think that the United Kingdom Government has a role to play in that regard.
Over recent weeks, we have all been disturbed to see the debacle in the European Commission and to hear the allegations that have been flung at specific commissioners, ranging from fraud and corruption to economic mismanagement. That is nothing new. It is perhaps on a scale, that we have not seen before, but there have been allegations of fraud in the past.
My recollection of past activities is different from that of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Having been a Euro-candidate and concerned with European affairs for many years, my recollection is that it is Labour Members of the European Parliament who have always been known as the biggest fraud busters in the EU, and Tory Members of the European Parliament who have fairly consistently blocked and failed to support measures to combat EU fraud
One of the commissioners who has been under the spotlight recently has been Mr. Marin, a commissioner with responsibility for part of EU aid spending. That is a sector that concerns me considerably. I worked in the international development sector before coming into


Parliament. I am a great believer that much of the EU aid programme does much good, but there have been many questions about how the EU aid budget has been spent.
How is the budget spent? Is it transparent? Is it open enough? When the aid reaches its destination, is it effective? Is it well delivered? Those questions have hung around for many years. They are coming to a head at the moment.
One of the first things that the Labour Government did on getting into power was to produce a White Paper on international development. We clearly laid out our priorities for how aid should be spent. It was well received by almost everyone who has a role in international development. The Labour Government stated clearly that aid should be spent on eradicating poverty, and that the UK aid budget should be targeted on the poorest countries to help the poorest people—that aid should be prioritised for the poorest countries. We were also brave and right finally to untie our aid budget from trade and other domestic interests. I am sure that my constituents in Gloucester would assume that that was also the case in Europe. I am sure that they and taxpayers throughout the country would assume that EU aid is prioritised in the same way—that it goes to the poorest countries. I would assume, as I am sure that most of us would, that the major beneficiary of EU aid, the country that receives the most, would be one of the poorest countries.
Information that came to us at a recent public meeting of the Select Committee on International Development showed that that is not necessarily true. I was shocked by what I heard. There has been a monumental shift in relation to the country that receives the most from EU aid spending. That is something that the Government need to be aware of and that we should look into.
In 1986–87, the country that received the most from the EU aid budget was Ethiopia, which received $157 million; quite right—Ethiopia is a very poor country. In 1991–92, Ethiopia was again the top recipient; it received $257 million in EU aid. That is fine. It is just what I would expect. It is consistent with the UK's aid policies.
What about 1996–97? Which country would we assume received the most EU aid? I would assume that it would be a country such as Ethiopia again, Mozambique, Bangladesh or Rwanda—a country that has a very low gross domestic product and is one of the poorest in the world. Is it? No. It is Morocco. In 1996–97, Morocco was the top recipient of EU aid. How did that come about? Morocco shot up from nowhere to become the top country receiving EU aid; it did not even feature in the top 10 countries receiving EU aid in the previous 10 years.
I have a big question about how that happened and how Morocco has been prioritised in that way. I cannot believe that, all of a sudden, Morocco has dropped in the world rankings, ceased being a middle-income country and suddenly become one of the poorest in the world. It is obvious and transparent that the EU is prioritising its strategic interests over the needs of poor people throughout the world. That is not what I would call open, accountable and democratic practice.
If we allow such practices to continue, the EU will be prioritising trade policies, our own domestic interests and our interests in having secure borders ahead of using aid money as it should be used—to provide aid. The Government should be investigating the matter, and the United Kingdom could be playing a strong role in determining Europe's aid priorities.
Morocco is not only a middle-income country receiving EU aid, but is spending about $1 million a day illegally occupying Western Sahara. Therefore, while receiving EU aid money to the tune of $280 million a year, it is spending about $365 million a year illegally occupying another country. Allowing such a situation to continue does not demonstrate good, open, democratic and accountable governance in the EU, and hon. Members should be pressing the United Kingdom Government to make representations about it in EU institutions. The EU aid budget is intended not to serve the EU's strategic interests, but to help the poorest people in the world.
The EU should be flexing its strategic muscles and promoting good practice by trying to ensure that peace continues in the Mediterranean and north African region. The EU and its member states, including the United Kingdom, should be examining very closely a conflict that is brewing once again very near to our borders, in the Western Sahara. The Moroccan Government have not responded positively to a new peace package proposed by the United Nations. The mandate for the United Nations peacekeeping operation in Western Sahara expires at the end of this month, on 31 January.
I believe that the United Kingdom Government, the EU and the EU member states have a very important role to play in urging Morocco to move towards peace, and to accept and respond positively to the new United Nations peacekeeping package. If Morocco does not respond positively, the mandate will expire on 31 January, the United Nations is likely to pull out, the area is likely to tip back into conflict, and there is likely to be instability and devastation on the EU's doorstep.
The EU's strategic interests can be served best by ensuring that that part of the world has an opportunity to enjoy sustainable development and by ensuring that peace is maintained in the region. Building peace in Western Sahara and ensuring that it can develop with a sense of freedom would achieve those objectives.
The second part of the Liberal Democrats' motion urges the Government to play a wider role in Europe and not only to consider the effects of the euro. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, I also urge the Government to ensure that we have peace in the areas bordering the European Union. Peace in Western Sahara is an important strategic matter for the EU. I also have some questions about the prioritisation of EU aid.
I should therefore like the Government urgently to deal with prioritisation of the EU aid budget and to urge Morocco to respond positively to the United Nation's peace package, so that we can help to achieve peace in the region, which would serve everyone' s strategic interests.

Mrs. Angela Browning: The wording of the Liberal Democrat motion accuses the Chancellor and the Government of being an absentee Government. I thought that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was rather unkind to the Chancellor in suggesting that he was absent for the euro's launch, on 1 January, because he was preoccupied with internal Labour party matters. I do not agree with that.
I thought that the low profile with which the Government approached the euro's launch was quite deliberate, and that it was indicative of something


described very accurately by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—the fact that the Government now have a policy of deceiving the British people on the euro.
If the Liberal Democrats were in a position to influence anything, surely it would be when they sat around the Cabinet table with their Cabinet partners discussing constitutional matters. I do not think that there is any disagreement in the House that a single currency is a constitutional matter.
The Liberal Democrat motion is a cry of frustration that the Government are not enthusiastic enough about giving up the pound—that they are not going about it fast enough. It is clear from what we have heard tonight that the Government intend to take the UK into the single currency and give up the pound. They are already printing the notes and striking the coins, so I have no doubt that they would like to do that. Regardless of what the Chief Secretary said, they are slow-pedalling for one simple reason: they have committed themselves to a referendum of the British people on the issue. Poll after poll tells the Government that a single currency would not find favour with the British people.
My local newspaper, the Western Morning News, reported on Friday 4 December the results of a readers' poll. It was conducted by postal ballot, so there was no chance of the result being rigged by people repeatedly dialling the same number, as we know that the Liberal Democrats tend to do in the west country—they have a good track record. Some 6,255 people said that they did not want to join the single currency—that was the question—and only 281 said that they did. With polls giving such results—a 96 per cent. no vote in that case—it is clear why the Government are slow-pedalling. They are not in a position to secure a yes vote, so they are back-tracking.
The paper says of the poll:
North Devon Lib Dem MP Nick Harvey said he thought it reflected thought on Europe at the moment, but added that once the euro gets under way and there is a concerted campaign in the lead to a referendum, it would alter. However, he expressed grave doubts that any campaign could deliver a 'yes' vote in a referendum.
That is an acknowledgement from one of the Liberal Democrats' most senior spokesmen that the British people are not likely to support a single currency.
That is the Government's dilemma. They are committed and the clock is ticking. They have to attend meetings in Europe. They have to make sure when they are over there that they say the right things to their European partners so that they do not think that we will not come on board. However, back home, they do not know what to say—or, as we heard from the Chief Secretary, they select narrow elements of the subject because they are terrified of the British people hearing the truth and having a full debate. It is clear that the Government will not achieve the result that they want from a referendum.
The Liberal Democrats have an opportunity to discuss the issue when they sit down with the Government. I am a little mystified as to why they have brought it to the House. If influence means anything, a Cabinet table seat—of which they have four—is the place to exercise it. That shows their lack of real influence. Why do they

continue to sit round the Cabinet table—I accept that they are nothing if not decorative—when they have been so let down by their Labour partners that they have to bring a constitutional matter to the House? I hope that they will press the Government on that next time they are round the Cabinet table. They should be more generous and understanding about the Government's dilemma.

Dr. Peter Brand: Does the hon. Lady accept that the Liberal Democrats at least believe in open, political debate, and that sitting around a table—no matter where it might be—is no substitute for debate in this Chamber?

Mrs. Browning: Of course this is the place for open debate. The very substance of what I am saying is that the Government do not want open debate on the single currency because the more that the British people hear about the realities of what is at stake, the more we will get results such as we had in the west country last month.
I am normally quite critical of the Liberal Democrats, but they are lovable and consistent.

Mr. Edward Davey: And principled.

Mrs. Browning: I would not say that. The hon. Gentleman pushes me a little too far. They are consistent, however, and they would give up the pound tomorrow—as we have heard—and would rush us into union, which would create a country called Europe. They have some allies in the debate. Some big businesses—particularly the chief spokesmen of multinational companies—are also enthusiastic about giving up the pound.

Dr. Brand: What about the National Farmers Union?

Mrs. Browning: I will resist that temptation. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to give way, perhaps he might observe the customs of the House.

Dr. Brand: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Browning: I will in a moment, but I have been more than generous.
Big business is very enthusiastic about supporting the rush to join the euro. I can understand some of the frustrations in terms of forward planning that big business is now experiencing because of the Government's attitude. Some companies—particularly multinationals—are keen also on the harmonisation of business taxes and on allowing unelected bankers to set our interest rates.
We all understand that the euro is now operational and—like any of the 80 currencies in which we trade as a nation—there is no reason why we should not trade in it. I am not unrealistic about that. However, some big businesses will now be trying to persuade their smaller suppliers to invoice them in euros. Many small companies in this country who do not export and who did not think that they would need to trade in euros will find that there is enormous pressure on them from their larger purchasers—in the same way as large companies put pressure on small companies in terms of their slowness of payment of debt. That same pressure will be exerted by large companies in a trickle-down effect on subcontractors and suppliers.
That development is part of the strategy on which the Government are relying—one of euro-creep. We have had Euro-speak, and we now have euro-creep. The Government are relying on the belief that, given sufficient time—and as long as they keep their head down and do not address the key important points—there will be sufficient acceptance, familiarity and inevitability about the existence of the euro among many people who had not thought that it would affect them. The Government are relying on the British people deciding in a referendum on the basis not of informed debate and information, but of acquiescence over a period. That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells was referring to when he described this as a policy of deceit.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the hon. Lady accept three points? If one is trading nationally and internationally, one wants to trade in the same currency—because that is sensible. If one's supplier companies are trading and pricing in the same currency, that is sensible—and, as we move into the European context, that becomes doubly sensible. Would not the hon. Lady, if she were an industrialist, like to pay 10 per cent. corporation tax, as in Eire, and a bank rate of 3 per cent. when she wanted to invest?

Mrs. Browning: I understand the need for individual companies to be able to choose the currency in which they want to trade. Is the hon. Gentleman telling us, from below the Gangway, that corporation tax is to be set at 10 per cent. under harmonisation? We would have preferred to hear that from a Minister at the Dispatch Box this evening. The Minister was reluctant to go into detail when pressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells so that we could have a substantive debate on the Government's policy for harmonised taxation.
The Government are in a state of denial about harmonised business taxes. Every time the subject is mentioned, they run for cover and try to change the language. If corporation tax is to be set at 10 per cent., let us have a debate on that on the Floor of the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is privy to information from Ministers. We pressed the Chief Secretary on the matter, but he was reluctant to discuss it.
As many hon. Members remarked in the debate, there is a price tag for what the Minister called the British economic interest in the context of a single currency. Again, that is a legitimate subject for debate. The Government deny that there is any constitutional price to pay for a single currency, but that constitutional price is beginning to frighten the British people. As the Minister said, there is a serious debate going on in Europe about the single currency, and constitutional as well as economic issues are under discussion.
The Government must consider carefully whether, in taking Britain into the single currency, as they clearly intend to do, they can persuade the British people by stealth or sleight of hand that there is no constitutional price to pay and that their everyday lives will not be affected. If the Government take Britain into the single currency under those circumstances, the backlash from the British people will have a devastating effect on the unity of the European Union of which the Government want to be part, and will tear this country asunder.

Mr. Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is right. There could not be a starker

contrast between the transparency of the debate taking place on the continent and the opaqueness of the one going on in the Government. Is she aware that in the Financial Times today, Joschka Fischer is reported as saying:
The introduction of a common currency is not primarily an economic, but rather a sovereign, and thus eminently political act"?
The position could not be stated more clearly than that. Why do not the Government come clean and acknowledge that that is what the whole project is about?

Mrs. Browning: Indeed. The German agenda for the presidency is to move that project along in the next six months. The Government would do well to consider the views expressed tonight by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who argued that the Government should recognise that the British people may be ignorant of the consequences and the constitutional price of monetary union. The populations of the member states may not be prepared to accept that determinations and decisions will be made by people who are not necessarily their democratically elected representatives. That is a potentially dangerous state of affairs, and the Government should not gamble with the prospect simply because they are in a corner, having promised a referendum, but knowing that the people would not support them.
I hope that I have shed a little light for the Liberal Democrats and explained why they are frustrated by the reluctance of their partners around the Cabinet table to move as quickly as they would like. I am sure that the Government would have moved much faster, were it not for the fact that opinion polls tell them that they are out of tune with the British people. The Government's plans are not in the interests of the British people. Unless they can guarantee that the British people can continue to have democratically elected representatives to speak for them on a range of issues including taxation, spending, defence policy and foreign policy, they will pay the price, and not only in electoral terms.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: Both the motion and the Government amendment emphasise the importance of a comprehensive economic policy to support business and to develop and implement that policy as part of Europe. Currency and the euro are extremely important issues, but so are policies that relate to investment, focusing investment and the interests of the regions. One of the Tory Government's legacies when they left office was the fact that not one region of the United Kingdom had a gross domestic product per head which could meet the European average.
Since taking office, the Government have managed to secure a major sea change in attitude. They have put jobs at the top of the agenda both in this country and in Europe. They have gone forward with a positive regional policy in a way that the previous Government refused to do. One of the consequences of the Conservative Government's refusal to accept regional policy was that the regions could not benefit fully from European policies that were based on reflecting the strengths of the regions across Europe as a whole.
In the 1980s and the early 1990s, local authorities had to come together and form their own partnerships with the private and voluntary sectors to ensure that they could


work directly with the Commission in attracting structural funds to develop and support industry and in developing policies to promote certain sectors of industry.

Mr. Loughton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Ellman: No. I am sorry, my time is limited.
It was because of the initiatives that came from the north-west region, in working with other regions of Europe, that the PERIFRA and Konver funds were set up to support defence diversification. That initiative was able to assist so many jobs in the north-west.
One of the new policies that the Government have implemented is the acceptance of regional devolution. The development of regional development agencies together with regional assemblies means that we shall shortly have in place the mechanism to attract European funding and to shape the form of European regional policies so as to give maximum support to our areas.
The innovative Merseyside special investment fund has shown already how £5 million of European funding has attracted £15 million of private funding to support 1,100 jobs. That is only one sign of the support and benefit that has come from Europe.
I note that the Opposition have learnt nothing. They opposed our involvement in Europe, which meant that our regions did not fully benefit from European regional policy. They still oppose regional policy and regional development agencies. If the Opposition were to have their way, we would still not have that support.
Our new devolved regional structures mean that, for the first time, we shall be able to maximise the benefits of focused economic policies, putting together single regeneration budgets along with European structural funding based on the strengths and needs of our regional economies.
The questions of currency and the euro are important. It is to the Government's credit that they are to take a decision on timing in the national interest. It is important also that we recognise the differing needs of different regions in this country and create structures enabling us to make the best use of European funding by our active participation in Europe. That will enable us to shape policies for the benefit of the people, jobs and the generation of wealth.

Mr. David Heath: We have had an interesting debate, including many interesting and thoughtful speeches. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said little, but said it, as always, eloquently, which might fit in with the best possible job description of a Chief Secretary. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) mildly castigated us for not extending the debate to wider issues. We should have loved to debate the common foreign and security policy, but we have done so before and shall do so again. We cannot debate every aspect of Europe every time a short debate is allotted to us. The hon. Member for Gloucester

(Ms Kingham) made a fine speech on international aid, and the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) was also good.

Mr. Loughton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heath: I do not have time as there are only 15 minutes in which to sum up the debate.
Among the Conservatives, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—no longer in his place—concentrated on the important issue of fraud, to which I shall return shortly, and on which I share much common ground with him. His remarks on the euro I found rather more cock-eyed. All the Conservatives who spoke talked of the constitutional implications of the euro, and about how they are a bar to their supporting membership of the euro. If that is so, there can be no time limit to that bar. It is intellectual nonsense for the Conservatives to persist in the notion that they can simultaneously say that there is a constitutional bar, and that the timing forms part of their policy. That is as nonsensical as the Labour party waiting for Murdoch.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) spoke interestingly on the European Council. He recognised the point that we have made repeatedly about the lack of democracy and accountability there. I do not quite share his doom-laden view of the likely outcome of any reforms, but we must keep asking questions about that part of the European Union.

Mrs. Browning: rose—

Mr. Heath: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) but she must be very brief.

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman is most generous. May I clarify Conservative policy, which has been endorsed by a vote by our membership? When there is a referendum, either in this Parliament or the next—hence the 10-year period—we shall campaign for a no vote. Whether it is this Parliament or the next, if the people vote yes and we enter the single currency, any policy that follows will be academic, as the country will have been sold for 40 pieces of silver.

Mr. Heath: I absolutely agree that we need an early referendum that will allow the people to decide. I find it hard to be too harsh on the hon. Lady as she said earlier that the Liberal Democrats were lovable and consistent, neither of which words I can ever use to describe the Conservative party. I wish I could reciprocate, but I cannot.
I shall not dwell on the euro, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has covered it, but we must not underestimate the many difficulties. A successful launch is one thing, but further difficulties will be experienced over the years to come. We want the Government to prepare for those difficulties, and to allow a choice to be made in the country. There is a gathering case behind those who see joining the euro as an essential part of Britain's economic future. We want an informed debate and the early consent of the British people to the


proposal put before them. The difficulty will come if matters are delayed to the point at which there is a self-defeating prophecy.
The second part of the motion suggests establishing a constitution for Europe. I am loth to use that expression, because it can be misinterpreted. However, our motion makes it plain that we are talking about defining and limiting the powers of European institutions, the constitutional relationship between the European Union and member states, and the rights of citizens. Most of all, we are talking about a European Union that is open, accountable, democratic and decentralised.
I am disappointed in the Government's amendment, which contains not a word about democracy, accountability or decentralisation. The problem is that the amendment was drafted in the Treasury, and no one sent it across the road for the views of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which surely would have wanted to say something about the structures of Europe that are not Treasury led. Such omissions would be a shame at any time, but they are a particular shame in this week above all weeks, given the unfolding crisis in Strasbourg and the clear demonstration of some of the basic problems that we have for many years identified in European Union institutions.
The difficulties that the Commission has faced go to the heart of the issue of accountability. This is a critical time for the European Union. Hon. Members may say that it is always a critical time for the EU, but it is one now because a strategic agenda is on the table, in which the Commission must be involved—whether we are talking about the introduction of the euro and its development, the problems and opportunities of enlargement, or the minor but important reforms that flow from the Amsterdam treaty. Astride that agenda is the Commission—its members and the advice that they give. That is why confidence in the European Commission is so vital and why we stress to such a great extent the need for the Commission to be more accountable.
That accountability does not exist. We cannot talk about the Commission being accountable while it retreats behind a facade of collegiate responsibility. We cannot do so when the only tool of remonstrance available to the Parliament charged with proper scrutiny of the commissioners is the nuclear option of sacking the lot. Also, we cannot talk about accountability while some Members of the European Parliament use a scatter-gun approach, slinging mud at every member of the Commission to make their point, when clearly there are omissions and commissions on the part of one or two of them.
When Jacques Santer was appointed—let us remember that he was the British Conservative nominee for the presidency—he talked about zero tolerance of mistakes in financial affairs in the European Union and he has talked about it again since. His control of the Commission does not engender much confidence in that approach; it is not zero tolerance, but simply zero. Last November, the report of the Court of Auditors was qualified for the fourth year running. Why? Because of
systematic failures to apply requisite checks",
and because the incidence of financial errors was so high that the court
has had to give an adverse opinion on legality and regularity.
It was also because £3 billion was fraudulently spent, or could not be accounted for.
What was Jacques Santer's reaction? He suspended the whistleblower. He castigated the Swedish Prime Minister, Göran Persson, when he had the temerity to suggest that all was not well. He then tried to bluff his way through by demanding a confidence vote, which I am sorry to say the socialist group connived at and aided and abetted. That was Santer's Christmas.
That is no way to run anything. If individual commissioners, such as Manuel Marin who is responsible for the budget, which, as the hon. Member for Gloucester said, seems to be out of control, and Edith Cresson, who is said to have abused her position because of the way she appointed consultants and others, can hide behind a spurious Cabinet responsibility, which really amounts to irresponsibility and unaccountability, we have to ask why. The buck has to stop somewhere. That is why our colleagues in the European Parliament will be pressing the censure motion on those two commissioners to a vote tomorrow; I hope that they succeed. I am told that they will receive the support of the Greens and the Gaullists, but it is likely that the vote will fail because the socialist and Christian Democrat groups have been persuaded by Mr. Santer and bulied and cajoled by their Governments into a compromise. I gather that British Tory MEPs will support the Liberal Democrat motion in the European Parliament tomorrow, and that several British Labour MEPs will also do so.
We have a Conservative group in Europe that cannot persuade any colleagues to join it in putting the Commission to an accountability test, and Labour is split because it cannot understand the tergiversations of Pauline Green when she tries to hide the Commission behind a cloak of procedure. There must be a better way to manage the European Union, and we must be in the forefront pushing for it. That is why it is so disappointing that our Government cannot lead a strategy to sort this out. One cannot be both a friend of Europe and a friend of fraud, incompetence and mismanagement. If one is for Europe, one must be for a reformed Europe. That is why accountability and democratisation are so important; they make reality out of the rhetoric.

Mr. Plaskitt: I want to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to clarify something important in the Liberal Democrat motion. Is it his party's position that the reforms to achieve the openness, accountability, democracy and decentralisation mentioned in the motion are a necessary condition for sterling's entry to the European currency zone?

Mr. Heath: The reforms are a necessary condition for a healthy European Union based on the principles of openness, accountability and democracy. I had hoped that Labour Members would share those with us as our objectives in politics. There is no difference between our objectives in Europe and in the United Kingdom. We are committed to the same principles of accountability, democracy and devolution of power to the lowest possible level. That is why we are so convinced that we must set a new agenda for Europe. We must find and persuade allies—they are there—who also want basic reform of the European Union to make it a reality.
I ask the Minister to show that the rhetoric, which I know is sincere in her case and in that of many of her colleagues, will be backed by action to make proper accountability in Europe a reality. We want assurances


that the rhetoric on preparing Britain for entry to the euro, and on the essential question that must soon be asked of the British people, will be backed by the actions needed to make it a reality.
It was said earlier that the economic cycle makes entry impossible, so we cannot even make the effort. The Liberal Democrats know that we cannot enter tomorrow. Which of us suggested it? However, we see the need to take action today so that the question can be asked tomorrow and we have the capacity to enter the day after. That must be the objective, both of this Government and of the Liberal Democrats. I ask the Minister to demonstrate that the leadership is in place to secure the necessary coalitions to make that a reality in Europe. I am sure that she will provide those reassurances.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): As in any debate on European issues, many questions have been posed and topics referred to, including the single currency; fraud; EU aid policy—which was raised in a thoughtful contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham)—democratic structures in the EU; Agenda 2000; tax issues, and, of course, through all those contributions, how Members on both sides of the House viewed the Government's record since taking office.
I was disappointed that, in introducing the debate, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) did not give the Government credit for their active and co-operative role in the EU from the outset. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) redressed the balance by talking of the many achievements in the European sphere that the Government have to their credit.
The Government's constructive approach was evident from the start in the way in which we approached and concluded the Amsterdam treaty. It is almost impossible to believe that a Conservative Government would have been able to conclude the Amsterdam treaty and agree to the improvements that we agreed with our partners, particularly with regard to social and employment policy, the environment, where we achieved a great deal, and continued and good co-operation on justice and home affairs issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Riverside mentioned regional policy. The Government have also been active in promoting the cause of openness and democratic debate in the EU, which is why I found so unconvincing the various allegations about the Government smuggling or trying to hide information—euro-creep, as I think it was referred to by one Opposition Member. We have had a good record on openness.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Given what the right hon. Lady has just said about her commitment to openness, will she now publish the British tax measures that are under investigation by the EU committee chaired by the Paymaster General? Will she give the House, either this evening or by letter tomorrow, a full list of the measures that are under scrutiny by the EU?

Ms Quin: I understand that much of that information is already available. I see hon. Members agreeing. Certainly,

there have been accounts of the various measures that are under consideration. I commend the work done by my hon. Friend in leading the work of that group.
Furthermore, in considering openness, I want to underline what I said a few minutes ago. Having been present at the first-ever open debate conducted in the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which was at our initiative, I know how committed we have been to making more information available to the public than was previously available.
I also commend to hon. Members the work that we have done recently on the scrutiny of European business in both Houses of Parliament. In the paper that we have produced, we have outlined various ways in which parliamentary scrutiny of European business will be improved in the future, and how scrutiny will be extended to the second and third pillars in a way that did not exist in the past. I hope that hon. Members will welcome what the Government have done in that area and concede that we have been willing to share information not only in Parliament, but more widely.
The British presidency, too, had many successes to its credit, and was a period when it became clear how engaged British Ministers were with their EU partners, and how successful that partnership was turning out to be. During our presidency, we were pleased to preside over the start of the enlargement negotiations. After the presidency, we were also pleased that we got the beef ban lifted—again, something that the previous Government signally failed to do.
Hon. Members will see that, in the past few weeks, the Government have taken a great many initiatives with our European partners. The defence initiative resulted in the joint declaration with the French Government at the British-French summit at St. Malo. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Swedish Prime Minister recently issued a joint statement about specific ways of tackling social exclusion and raising that issue on the European agenda.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his Spanish counterpart put out a joint statement on various aspects of employment and competitiveness, which was welcomed by our European partners. Last month, a joint statement was issued by the Prime Minister and Chancellor Schroder on taxation, which gave the lie to many of the unjustified scare stories on taxation in the British press in November and December.
Much of the debate, particularly the opening contribution, focused on the euro. I was disappointed that credit was not given to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his colleagues in the Treasury for their work with business on preparations for the euro and, in particular, for dealing with the euro now that it is coming into force in such a large part of our internal market. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that we have a strong interest in the success of the euro because it operates in our internal market. We recognise the efforts that countries made towards ensuring not only that they met the criteria but that they were able to launch the euro at the beginning of January.
My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary described fully the tests that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has rightly said are important if we are to be able to be part of the euro in future. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Gordon seemed to feel that those


tests were not relevant; they deal with issues such as employment, investment and sustainable convergency which are crucial to our economy and our country. We are actively working with industry in preparing for the euro. As I said, we have a strong interest in its success.
The Conservative position on the euro seemed to shift during the debate. That is significant, but perhaps not surprising given the contributions of Conservative Members, who were saying that the fundamental threats posed by the euro to sovereignty and political and constitutional considerations logically rule out euro membership for ever. I see that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is nodding. The Front-Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), conceded that. He said that he was in favour of that position, and perhaps even announced a change in Conservative policy on the euro. It is no longer a question of postponing for 10 years any consideration of joining; in his view, euro entry is ruled out for ever on constitutional grounds.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The right hon. Lady must address what we said, not what she hopes that we said. Nothing my hon. Friends or I said can be interpreted as she is trying to do. We said that there are constitutional implications to the change that are deceitfully denied by the Government. Will the right hon. Lady take this opportunity to confirm that there are important constitutional implications involved in giving up sterling which ought to be considered in the decision to join the euro, because that is not stated in the amendment that she tabled?

Ms Quin: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly acknowledged that there are political and constitutional implications, but, in his statement last October, he also said that they were not of a magnitude to provide a constitutional bar to membership. That position was also reaffirmed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary in his contribution this evening. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has just joined us. He clearly signalled that the constitutional and political implications of the euro were such that he could not contemplate joining it. He nods his head vigorously; so he does not support the policy that the Opposition spokesman has now grudgingly said that he supports, even though the right hon. Gentleman gave us the opposite impression in the debate.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will the hon. Lady just acknowledge that the great majority of the British public, according to every poll that is taken, are on our side on this issue?

Ms Quin: I am not sure what the definition of "on our side" is, as there are obviously two distinct positions on the Conservative Benches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Three."] Three or possibly more, but, in this debate, two distinct positions have been articulated.
It is true that opinion polls do not show enthusiasm for the euro. None the less, if we believe that the euro is in our interests, there will be a referendum campaign in which the advantages and disadvantages are fully aired. That is another reason why I found unconvincing the charges that we were smuggling and being secretive about information about the euro. We are committed to holding

a referendum. A referendum campaign is the perfect way to ensure maximum public open debate on the subject. It is a debate that I will welcome.
Some reference was made in the debate to tax harmonisation. We estimate that, far from Britain being isolated on that issue, at least nine countries in the EU do not support tax harmonisation leading to single EU tax rates. There are on record helpful statements that back up that view by leading politicians and Heads of Government in Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Greece, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. I see that the hon. Member for Gordon is nodding in agreement. I welcome what he said in clarification of his party's position on the issue, which is similar to our own. We uphold the need to proceed by unanimity on such matters.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Before the hon. Lady finishes, will she say something about what the Government have done to facilitate the enlargement of Europe and enable the countries of central and eastern Europe to join more quickly than they are able to do at present?

Ms Quin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I said earlier that I was proud that, as president of the EU, we launched the enlargement negotiations. I am enthusiastic, as the Government are, about enlargement. It is a tremendous opportunity for the European continent. We expect to remain a firm and key supporter of the enlargement process in the coming months. I am grateful for the opportunity to put that on record.
Many hon. Members mentioned the real problem of fraud in the European Union. I was somewhat disappointed at the party politics that were played on the issue. As a former Member of the European Parliament, I know that British MEPs from different parties have played an important role in tackling fraud issues. Lord Tomlinson has played a prominent role in bringing those issues to the fore and taking a hard line with the European Commission on them. The Opposition spokesman is guilty of selective amnesia in talking about the importance of whistleblowing. I seem to remember that the previous Government were opposed to any type of whistleblowing in the national health service.
Unfortunately, I have to bring my comments to a conclusion, but I should like to say firmly that the Government's agenda is pro-Europe and pro-reform. We do not argue that Europe has got it all right but, unlike the previous Government, we are committed to working with our partners to get it right to make Europe work and to make it work for Britain. Those are Labour's aims. We have already begun to achieve them and I believe that we will achieve much more in the months to come.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 281.

Division No. 33]
[10 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Breed, Colin


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Baker, Norman
Burnett, John


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Burstow, Paul


Brake, Tom
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Brand, Dr Peter

Chidgey, David






Cotter, Brian
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Dafis, Cynog
Oaten, Mark


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Öpik, Lembit


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Rendel, David


Gorrie, Donald
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Harris, Dr Evan
Sanders, Adrian


Harvey, Nick
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mô)
Tyler, Paul


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tyler, Paul


Keetch, Paul
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Willis, Phil


Kirkwood, Archy



Livsey, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Andrew Stunell and


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Mr. Edward Davey.


NOES


Ainger, Nick
Colman, Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Connarty, Michael


Allen, Graham
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cooper, Yvette


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Corbett, Robin


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Corston, Ms Jean


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cousins, Jim


Austin, John
Crausby, David


Banks, Tony
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Barron, Kevin
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Battle, John
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bayley, Hugh
Dalyell, Tam


Beard, Nigel
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bennett, Andrew F
Dawson, Hilton


Benton, Joe
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bermingham, Gerald
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Berry, Roger
Dobbin, Jim


Best, Harold
Donohoe, Brian H


Betts, Clive
Dowd, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Drew, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Drown, Ms Julia


Blizzard, Bob
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Boateng, Paul
Edwards, Huw


Borrow, David
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ennis, Jeff


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Etherington, Bill


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fatchet Derek


Burgon,Colin
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Follett, Barbara


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Caplin, Ivor
Galloway, George


Caton, Martin
Gardiner, Barry


Chaytor, David
Gerrard, Neil


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clapham, Michael
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Goggins, Paul


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Ann
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Coaker, Vernon
Hanson, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Cohen, Harry
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coleman, Iain
Healey, John





Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Miller, Andrew


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mitchell, Austin


Hepburn, Stephen
Moffatt, Laura


Heppell, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hesford, Stephen
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hill, Keith
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hinchliffe, David
Morley, Elliot


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mountford, Kali


Hoey, Kate
Mudie, George


Home Robertson, John
Mullin, Chris


Hood, Jimmy
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hope, Phil
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Howells, Dr Kim
Olner, Bill


Hoyle, Lindsay
O'Neill, Martin


Hurst, Alan
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hutton, John
Pearson, Ian


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pendry, Tom


Illsley, Eric
Pickthall, Colin


Ingram, Adam
Pike, Peter L


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Plaskitt, James


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pond, Chris


Jamieson, David
Pope, Greg


Jenkins, Brian
Powell, Sir Raymond


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Keeble, Ms Sally
Quinn, Lawrie


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rammell, Bill


Kemp, Fraser
Rapson, Syd


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Raynsford, Nick


Khabra, Piara S
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kidney, David
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kitfoyle, Peter
Rooker, Jeff


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rooney, Terry


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Rowlands, Ted


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Ruane, Chris


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Ryan, Ms Joan


Laxton, Bob
Savidge, Malcolm


Lepper, David
Sawford, Phil


Leslie, Christopher
Sedgemore, Brian


Levitt, Tom
Shaw, Jonathan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Sheerman, Barry


Linton, Martin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Livingstone, Ken
Shipley, Ms Debra


Lock, David
Singh, Marsha


McAllion, John
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Macdonald, Calum
Snape, Peter


McDonnell, John
Soley, Clive


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mackinlay, Andrew
Squire, Ms Rachel


MacShane, Denis
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mactaggart, Fiona
Steinberg, Gerry


McWilliam, John
Stevenson, George


Mallaber, Judy
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Marek, Dr John
Stinchcombe, Paul


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Meale, Alan
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Merron, Gillian
Temple—Morris, Peter


Milburn, Alan
Tipping, Paddy






Todd, Mark
Wicks, Malcolm


Touhig, Don
Wills, Michael


Trickett, Jon
Winnick, David


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wise, Audrey


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wood, Mike


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Woolas, Phil


Vis, Dr Rudi
Worthington, Tony


Walley, Ms Joan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Wareing, Robert N
Tellers for the Noes:


Watts, David
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Mr. Mike Hall.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises the importance to the British economy of continued membership of the European Community; welcomes the step change that the Government has made in its economic relations with the UK's European partners and the real benefits that constructive engagement has brought for Britain; commends the progress made by the Government in promoting economic reform in Europe as the basis for growth and job creation; welcomes the Government's ongoing programme of practical assistance to British business on the implications of the euro; commends the Bank of England and the financial services industries for the skill and expertise with which they managed Britain's part in the transition of 1st January 1999; and welcomes the Government's decision to make the national economic interest the key test for British entry to the single currency on the basis of five economic tests and that any final decision should be made by the British people as set out in the Chancellor's statement to the House of 27th October 1997.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.—[Mr. Allen.]

Question agreed to.

RATING (VALUATION) BILL

Ordered,
That, during the proceedings on the Rating (Valuation) Bill, the Standing Committee on the Bill shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—[Mr. Allen.]

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Ordered,

That Miss Melanie Johnson be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Ms Margaret Moran be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Allen.]

GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY BILL (PROGRAMME)

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the Greater London Authority Bill—

Committee of the whole House

1. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House on Clauses 1 to 4 of, and Schedules I and 2 to, the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second day.

Standing Committee

2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee to which the remainder of the Bill is committed shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 12.50 p.m. on 30th March 1999.

Business Committee

3. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on the Bill.

Business Sub-Committee

4. Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee.

Procedure in Standing Committee

5. At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order or a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee, the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

Conclusion of proceedings

6. For the purpose of concluding any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by or under this Order—

(1) The Chairman or Speaker shall put forthwith the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause or Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown; and
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.

(3) If, apart from this sub-paragraph, two or more Questions would fall to be put by the Chairman under sub-paragraph (1)(d) in relation to a series of Clauses or Schedules to which no notice of amendment has been given by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman shall instead put a single question in relation to those Clauses and Schedules.

(4) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

Supplementary provisions

7. In this Order "allotted day" means any day on which the Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.

8. If any Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to amend this Order so as to provide a greater amount of time for proceedings on the Bill under paragraph 1 or 2 of this Order, the Question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.

9. If any Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to supplement the provisions of this Order in respect of proceedings on Consideration or Third Reading or on any Lords Amendments or any subsequent message from the Lords relating to the Bill, the Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, at any hour and the proceedings, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three-quarters of an hour after they have been commenced.—[Mr. Allen.]

Allerton Bywater

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]

Mr. Colin Burgon: I am very pleased to be able to help put the village of Allerton Bywater on the national map as a result of being successful in securing this Adjournment debate.
Hoping that I will not sound too much like a geography teacher, I shall point out that the village of Allerton Bywater is a former mining village lying in the south-eastern corner of the Leeds boundary, overlooking the neighbouring town of Castleford. The colliery, which over 100 years was mainly responsible for the growth and development of the village, finally closed in 1992. Its closure was part of the last Government's vindictive closure programme.
The colliery, adjoining workshops and British Coal's administrative offices provided employment for about 2,000 people. All those jobs have now disappeared, with obvious knock-on effects for local shops and businesses. As a result—this is based on figures from May 1998—the village has an unemployment rate of 10.5 per cent., twice the national average and twice the Leeds average.
My links with Allerton predate the miners' strike of 1984–85, but it was during that great strike that I got to know the village well and made many friends. One of my abiding memories of that time is of being invited to join the local miners on their march back to work after the strike ended. The march finished in the colliery yard. I think it very fitting that the colliery site that loomed so large in the life of the village is now seen as a catalyst for the positive changes that will help to create a more confident future as we move towards the millennium.
Hon. Members can imagine my delight when, on 13 July 1998, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that Allerton Bywater had been chosen as a site for the second millennium communities competition—following in the footsteps of the highly acclaimed and successful Greenwich millennium village project. Building on that success, the Deputy Prime Minister asked English Partnerships to organise five or six further competitions in the English regions.
Included in the criteria for the second competition were requirements that the site chosen should comprise previously used land in order to meet the Government's brown-field and recycling agenda; that the site should offer a range of different challenges from an urban planning, environmental, sociological and technological perspective; that the site should have a waterfront location; that the possibility of what is described as retrofitting a scheme into an existing settlement should be considered; and that the site chosen should enable the recommendations of the coalfields task force report to be observed in the context of empowering the coalfield areas affected by pit closures to bring about their own sustainable regeneration. I would like to think that my charm, persuasiveness and brilliant ability to network were responsible, but I think that it was for the reasons that I have just given that Allerton was chosen.
The whole project—all the competition—presents a vivid contrast to the last Government's approach. This Labour Government are about social inclusion and social solidarity: they reject the idea that the fate of communities should be left to the whim of market forces.
I have no doubt that the Deputy Prime Minister has high expectations of the millennium communities competition in Allerton Bywater, and I know that the villagers, English Partnerships, Leeds city council and the advisory panel share those expectations. We all look to the successful scheme to act as a reference point for future development, particularly of brown-field land, and as an example of best practice for the regeneration, design and development of many other urban and rural communities throughout the country.
I am privileged to be a member of the advisory panel chaired by Lord Rogers of Riverside, which has helped English Partnerships to assess the original 11 submissions from consortiums that wish to carry out the project. We are now down to the final three, and, after a period of community consultation in the village, the winning submission will hopefully be announced at the beginning of March.
The aspirations of the millennium communities competition that the winning submission will have to meet are stringent and demanding, and are worthy of mention as an illustration of the philosophy behind the project. First, the competing consortiums have been informed that they will have to develop a design philosophy of the highest quality. They will have to recognise that this is a project of national significance, and they will have to challenge much of the mundane housing design that has become typical of the British approach to house building over the past 20 years. That approach has given us development that lacks the community, social and cultural focal points that sustain life.
Secondly, there must be a mixed-use development of the 60-acre colliery site. The new plan for Allerton Bywater has to capture the essential qualities of a working village, best delivered through an appropriate mix of uses.
Thirdly, sustainability is central to the project. Targets will be set and will have to be achieved. The houses that will be built at Allerton Bywater will break new ground in more ways than one—they will be energy efficient. A target of 50 per cent. reduction in energy consumption compared with conventional housing has been set for the competition. Combined heat and power, solar energy, solar gain and the highest standards of insulation will all have to be looked at. On the basis of expectations at Greenwich, the aim is to reduce household waste in Allerton Bywater by 50 per cent. It may not be popular with the bin men, but there we are.
Many of those ideas and others that I do not have time to mention show what a progressive and forward-looking project the village will be involved in. Allerton Bywater will be a trail-blazer for the rest of the country.
The fourth aspiration is that it is of the utmost importance that the project must at all times acknowledge that
integration with the existing village
is central to the whole scheme. In a nutshell, we must ensure that we avoid sharp and divisive social and physical contrasts between the existing village and the new development on the site of the colliery.
That is a real challenge, but I am glad to note that the liveliness and involvement of people in the village is instrumental in helping us to face and meet that challenge.
We have in place a colliery site forum, which was set up by English Partnerships. I chair the forum. It facilitates public discussion and involvement in the question of

pit-site development and related topics. I am pleased to note that two former members of the National Union of Mineworkers sit on the forum: Les Wigglesworth and Karl Curry, both of whom played a prominent part in the 1984–85 strike. The people who destroyed the coal industry have moved on, but those two men are still here, determined as ever to forward the interests of the community in which they live.
Many other organisations are involved in the village, but, unfortunately, time does not permit me to list them all. However, I must acknowledge that my meetings with the local regeneration group, organised by Ken Asprey, and the tenants and residents, organised by Ian Sambrook, have been especially valuable in keeping me informed of villagers' views. By May, we will have a newly formed parish council for the village. That should overcome any perception of a so-called democratic deficit.
From my wide discussions with villagers, I am able to tell the House that the priorities that are held by them are the priorities that are held by us all—they want better education, jobs and training and an improved physical and social environment.
It is recognised that people will need high-quality local education facilities if we are to make the idea of lifelong learning a reality. We hope to see improved community learning and study resources at both the village school sites, centred on an information and communications technology network. I am confident that, in the head at Brigshaw school, Peter Lawrence, and the head at Allerton Bywater primary school, Gill Weatherhead, we have two people who will give a lead in our quest to develop the concept of a learning village and a culture that values education.
With reference to jobs and training, people want workshops and office spaces to be developed on the site. They want to be able to work locally. I know that English Partnerships is actively considering proposals for employment. At a minimum, I hope that local people will benefit from the job opportunities that arise from the development work and that contractors will be required to use and to train local labour.
The ideas relating to an improved physical and social environment are wide ranging. As its name suggests, the village has a riverside setting and there is a widespread desire to maximise that undoubted asset in visual amenity and leisure terms. There is a recognised need to create a real village centre in what is, currently, a linear settlement with no natural focus.
Under active consideration are schemes to improve unadopted roads, tree planting programmes and improvements to sport and community facilities, with the emphasis on developing what is already in place. Traffic flows have created much discussion. We would all welcome traffic-calming measures in the village. I add that, in an attempt to improve links with the outside world, plans are afoot to put a bridge over the River Aire to the neighbouring village of Methley.
I hope that I have shown the exciting possibilities that have been opened by the millennium competition for Allerton Bywater. A positive step has been taken and local people overwhelmingly recognise that. We realise also that we have to have the continuing support of the Government. I therefore ask the Minister—who comes from an area that is similar to mine—to confirm, first, that that support will continue.
In summing up the lessons to be learned, the Greenwich competition briefing paper stated:
Provision of Training/Health/Cultural facilities and programmes to create a true mixed-use community requires the full backing of a number of different departments willing to commit or top slice budgets to deliver a truly holistic solution.
Secondly, I ask the Minister to confirm that, when it comes to considering financial imperatives, the Government will sensitively balance also the village's social needs and desires.
Thirdly, I ask the Minister to pass on to the Deputy Prime Minister and to the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning an invitation to visit Allerton Bywater in the near future. I assure them that they will receive a friendly reception.
I have been delighted to show some of my London-based colleagues on the advisory panel round Allerton. Although I know that no hon. Member would question the implicit superiority of all things northern, I have been able to develop a better insight into the value, worth and attractiveness of Allerton Bywater by seeing it through fresh—London—eyes.
I can do no better in ending my speech than to quote the words of another visitor to Allerton Bywater, Dr. Francis Duffy, who is also involved in the millennium competition. In his message to the various consortiums competing for the work, he said:
Consortia will recognise that this is an extraordinary competition intended by the Government to set new standards in the imaginative redevelopment of brownfield sites. They should also be aware of the need to respond sensitively to this very particular site and to the long established community that surrounds it. The village of Allerton Bywater has been shaped by the waterways, the colliery and the railway. The result is a markedly linear village. To the north is a fine, rolling, well wooded countryside. To the south a totally different, much more watery landscape. The village consists of clusters of houses, predominantly red brick, of varying forms and ages, some dating back to the Nineteenth Century and most with well tended gardens. In between are hedges, ragged patches of wood, allotments, churches and chapels, a few small shops, sheds, a cricket field, bowling greens and some fine Victorian school buildings—in other words the landscape of Industrial Britain that D. H. Lawrence described so lovingly. What is proposed should complement and regenerate this heritage rather than ignore it, or even worse, erase it.
I heartily concur with those words.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) on securing this debate on a subject that I know is of great interest to him and to many of his constituents. I should like also to pay tribute to him for his persistence—which he practises in the House whenever gets an opportunity to do so—in promoting the interest of his constituency and the areas surrounding it.
My hon. Friend knows the importance that the Government place on regenerating former coalfield communities and of our long-term commitment to making progress in that task. As he said, I represent an area that is similar to his own because they are both ex-coal mining areas. However, he may not know that I was born in another coal mining area, in the north-east of England, and lived in a colliery house for all of my childhood.
I should remind the House of the origins of the idea of building a millennium village at Allerton Bywater. As my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his speech, in July 1997, the Deputy Prime Minister told the Durham Miners gala:
we had a duty to the coalfield communities to help them breath new life into their towns and villages.
A man of his word, to start the process, the Deputy Prime Minister established the coalfields task force, the remit of which was to identify and develop a specific programme of action to assist communities in England suffering from deprivation caused by the pit closure programme. As he explained at the time, that objective would be best served by pooling the expertise of Departments and other partners in the regeneration process.
As part of the research process that the Deputy Prime Minister initiated by creating the task force—I do not hesitate to pay tribute to its members, particularly under the fine stewardship of Paula Hay Plumb—the task force held five public hearings to listen to the views of local people. It also held discussions with key national bodies and Departments, and received submissions from more than 250 individuals and organisations. Unlike some research programmes, the task force also took the time to visit many of Britain's coalfield areas.
In June 1998, the task force produced an excellent and widely acclaimed report entitled "Making the Difference—A New Start for England's Coalfield Communities", which was deservedly well received and instigated a positive response from many interested communities, not just coalfield communities, throughout the UK. It recommended a programme of action, building on the work of the coalfields communities, and made recommendations for the Government to take forward.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, at the first coalfields conference, held at Ollerton miners welfare—not to be confused with Allerton—in Nottinghamshire, near my constituency, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out the Government's initial response. He said that we should take an integrated approach to coalfield regeneration to forge a new start for local communities, which would require a long-term approach. He also announced the establishment of two new national sources of funding for English coalfields: the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and the coalfields enterprise fund.
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister also announced that a millennium village would be built at Allerton Bywater in west Yorkshire. I shall return to that in a moment.
Following the initiation of discussions by my right hon. Friend, we spent four months considering each of the task force's recommendations in detail and prepared a comprehensive integrated written response to the report, culminating in the production of our report, "Making the Difference—A New Start for England's Coalfield Communities" in December that year.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, in partnership with colleagues from the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Education and Employment and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, set out a detailed, integrated, long-term programme for 10 years and more at a second coalfields conference at Peterlee in County Durham. To help achieve the objectives in the task force's initial report,


the announcement included a £350 million investment programme for the coalfields, together with details of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and the enterprise fund.
We much appreciate the positive and constructive response from the conference, which made us even more determined to deliver on our promises and to meet our obligations and duties to the people of the mining communities of Britain. The millennium communities competition proposal for Allerton Bywater is an important part of this delivery service, not just because of what it can do for Allerton, but to show, like the late, great Minister, John Wheatley. what this country can achieve in design, architecture and building of modern homes and communities.
My hon. Friend has spoken about Allerton from his perspective. I fully endorse what he has said. I am glad that he will be able to feed his views into the system as a member of the advisory panel that will help English Partnerships to select a consortium to take the work forward. I wish them well in rebuilding Allerton, which had a colliery employing 1,300 miners at its height and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, was probably responsible for more than 3,000 jobs in the community. Without the support that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has made possible, the community would have a heck of a job, because all that is left of the colliery is a largely derelict 60 acre site.
It might be helpful for me to give a little more detail about what we hope to achieve with the millennium village in Allerton. In doing so, I will try to address in detail the points that my hon. Friend has made.
In Greenwich—at our first millennium site, next to the millennium dome—we have set out to show what a community for the next century could be like. The Greenwich village will be sustainable, well-designed and have sensible arrangements for transport, in particular. The benefits of an urban village should not be confined simply to cities—or to London. We want to see them across all the English regions, and not just in the urban areas. We want to spread the benefits to rural areas too—areas such as Allerton Bywater, where we expect those involved in the project to apply the lessons learnt at Greenwich.
The millennium communities competition in Allerton has two main purposes. First, it aims to encourage the process by which developers are encouraged to design places where people wish to live, work, rest and play—a new community which is sustainable and uses the best of modern technology. Secondly, developers should demonstrate in their plans that a sustainable community can be turned into a commercial reality without public subsidy. Frankly, we believe that that is the only sensible way forward.
It will not be good enough to continue what has happened in the past 10, 20 or 30 years—much of which has failed the coalfield communities of Britain. We live in new times, with new requirements and new pressures. The English Partnerships brief for stage 2 of the competition pointed out that

the Millennium Communities of Allerton Bywater will take its inspiration from the quality, vibrancy and unity of village life and match this with innovation in building design and sustainable development, as a model for 21st century communities".
An overriding theme of the competition is to demonstrate best practice, to take best practice forward and to demonstrate what can be done in the areas of energy efficiency, building technology, waste disposal and so on. It is important to provide effective, integrated local public services—particularly health—and to provide effective and integrated public transport. We want to see a 30 per cent. reduction in construction costs, a 25 per cent. reduction in construction time and—most importantly—0 per cent. defects at the point of handover.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, three consortiums have been shortlisted and invited to proceed to stage two of the competition to develop Allerton: they are Bellway, Aire Regeneration and Daniel Libeskind. They have been asked to submit detailed proposals to English Partnerships by 19 February this year. I understand that their outline proposals highlighted the need to support and enhance existing community facilities and the need to create new jobs for local people.
I am pleased to hear that discussions are continuing between the three consortiums and local authority representatives—an example of real community involvement in the revitalisation of their home areas. That factor is essential in delivering the regeneration of all the coalfield communities of Britain. We will also support communities to help themselves and, in that respect, the Coalfields Regeneration Trust will be happy to play an important role.
I am sure that the advisory panel and English Partnerships will look sympathetically at how we achieve the necessary balance between financial and social issues. The subject is being tackled also by the urban task force under the guidance of Lord Rogers, whose interim report was published today. We are looking forward to the final report in the summer, which will be taken into consideration as we develop our forthcoming urban White Paper.
Finally, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet for his kind words about the role of departmental Ministers—in particular the Deputy Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend has put a lot of work into this project, and he has held it up as an example of how the new Labour Government can deliver some of our manifesto promises. We will take a keen interest in the work of English Partnerships and the chosen developer as they try to deliver the objectives that we are seeking for Allerton.
Once again, I congratulate and pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is persistent in his endeavours to promote the rights and fight for the future of all the people whom he represents in his constituency. He sets an example to hon. Members on both sides of the House in his efforts to get the maximum advantage for his constituents. I thank my hon. Friend for this fine opportunity for a debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o' clock.